Why Did Gonzales Answer The Questions?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Law Related
Posted on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:56:52 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has tossed himself into a legal pickle by answering questions in ways that, at this point, appear to have been untruthful. The question is why did he answer the questions at all? I mean 64 "I don't recall"s in his previous appearance. A flat out refusal to answer a question from Schumer in his last appearance. And think of this, as reported by Marty Lederman:

[A]t the Senate Judiciary hearing this week, Senator Durbin . . . asked the AG, in particular, whether it would be legal for a foreign government to subject nonuniformed U.S. personnel to five particular interrogation techniques -- "painful stress positions, threatening detainees with dogs, forced nudity, waterboarding and mock execution."
This was our Attorney General's shameful non-response:

"Senator, you're asking me to answer a question which, I think, may provide insight into activities that the CIA may be involved with in the future. . . . [I]t would depend on circumstances, quite frankly."

. . . In questions following a hearing last summer, Senator Durbin asked the each of the Judge Advocates General of the military services the same question about the application of Common Article 3 to such interrogation techniques. The JAGs -- Navy Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald; Army Major General Scott Black; Marine Brigadier General Kevin Sandkuhler; and Air Force Major General Jack Rives -- have now submitted their answers, which are just a bit less equivocal, and quite a bit shorter, than the responses of the Attorney General, the President, and Mike McConnell:

QUESTION: Are those five techniques consistent with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions?

ANSWER (from each of the JAGs): "No."

Q: Are they unlawful?
A: Yes.

So why answer the other questions instead of dodging them? Spencer Ackerman and Paul Kiel have a theory:

Alberto Gonzales' testimony that there was "no serious disagreement" within the Bush Administration about the NSA warrantless surveillance program has left senators sputtering and fulminating about the attorney general's apparent prevarications. But a closer examination of Gonzales' testimony and other public statements from the Administration suggest that there may be a method to the madness.
There's a lot of evidence to suggest that Gonzales's careful, repeated phrasing to the Senate that he will only discuss the program that "the president described" was deliberate, part of a concerted administration-wide strategy to conceal from the public the very broad scope of that initial program. When, for the first time, Program X (as we'll call it, for convenience's sake) became known to senior Justice Department officials who were not its original architects, those officials -- James Comey and Jack Goldsmith, principally -- balked at its continuation. They did not back down until the program had undergone as-yet-unspecified but apparently significant revisions. But when President Bush announced what he would call the "Terrorist Surveillance Program' in December 2005, he left the clear impression that the program had always functioned the same way since its 2001 inception.
The administration's consistent refusal to discuss any aspect of the program -- current or former -- aside from what President Bush disclosed in December 2005 appears to be intended, specifically, to gloss over Comey and Goldsmith's objections. If that's the case, it could mean that the public has been presented with an inaccurate picture of the origins and scope of Program X. The Bush administration is currently contesting a Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documentation establishing Program X's history -- in essence, trying to ensure that the public never learns more about the program and the internal deliberations over it than what President Bush chooses to reveal.

So, the theory goes, Gonzales is taking one for the team in order to conceal even worse secrets.

I do not buy that theory as presented. Having become a veteran Gonzales watcher, I have seen him look as foolish as any witness I can remember. Both by stating inanities and by claiming faulty memory. The man has had no compunction in playing or being the fool. Would that not serve the purpose better? How would a perjury investigation serve the goal?

Or perhaps Ackerman and Kiel are positing that Gonzales is just bad at covering up for the Administration. To wit, he is a fool AND a knave.

That seems a more plausible explanation.

< "No End in Sight" Opens in Theaters | US Feuds With Saudis Over Iraq >

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.

Why Did Gonzales Answer The Questions? | 27 comments (27 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Nice Try (5.00 / 0) (#5)
by jarober on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:59:56 PM EST

Are you going to claim that every muffed recollection is a lie then? Is that the new scale for perjury?

I can barely wait for the next Democratic administration, so we can see just how well Big Tent likes the shoe being on the other foot.

Oy vey (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 11:07:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Gonzo has the opportunity to correct his testimony (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:19:40 AM EST

Lets see if he does. So far he has been contradicted my FBI director, Muller, the socalled "Gang of 8" and then there is the documentary evidence.

His window of opportunity is short though.

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

MB (none / 0) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:55:27 AM EST

Earlier today, FBI Director Robert Mueller seemed to contradict Gonzales when he testified before a House committee that his impression was that the hospital visit did relate to the terrorist surveillance program. This was hearsay on Mueller's part, since he was not present at the interview, but arrived shortly after. He apparently got the impression that the TSP program was involved from Ashcroft.

BTW - Anybody ever been in a meeting when two things were discussed??

Me? Why yes. I have. In fact many times more than two things.

[ Parent ]

The genuis at Powerline (none / 0) (#24)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:41:09 AM EST

should look up the hearsay rule. IIRC, there are 29 ways around the rule- 26 exceptions (depending on how you count them), and 3 things which are defined specifically as non-hearsay.

As quoted in the article Powerline references either this ain't hearsay.

Aside from the fact, we aren't in a court yet for the out of court statement to be offered as evidence, hearsay is an out of court statement allowed in evidence for the Truth of the Matter Asserted (TOMA). What was asserted? Mueller's understanding of the conversation, not the conversation itself. By definition, not hearsay.

Even if Mueller were to testify to the exact conversation that give him this impression, there is an exception to the rule, which would cover it- res gestae or present sense exception. The out of court speakers were telling Mueller about an event as it happened. A judge should allow those statements as evidence for the TOMA.

MB (none / 0) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:33:27 AM EST

You protest too much...

The court could also disallow it..

[ Parent ]

: A judge could also sprout wings (none / 0) (#28)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 02:06:11 PM EST

out of his posterior and fly to the moon, but I don't expect it to happen.
The real problem is I explain too much for those who do not wish to listen and learn.

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

Mirror, mirror (none / 0) (#8)
by NMvoiceofreason on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:30:17 AM EST

...on the wall, who is the biggest liar of them all?

Is it the person who testifies about an illegal program trying to be rammed through an approval to keep it going by taking advantage of a sick man in a hospital, or is it the person who found a flatly unlawful program to be ok, and tried to steamroll everybody who opposed it, obstructed justice by denying clearances to protect himself, and then lied to Congress to cover it up?

[ Parent ]

: NM (none / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:47:06 AM EST

I think the program had been approved by the AG some 16 times in a row. (The number may be larger.)
Now cames a DAG who has questions.
Does he call the Pres and say, let's talk? Nope. Just doesn't sign and, evidently, goes home.
In addition:

John Schmidt, associate attorney general of the United States in the Clinton administration, superbly explains why the NSA intercept program is legal under all authorities and precedents:
"President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.
In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant."

BTW - Ashcroft had gallstones. They are painful, but not life threatening.
And from all reports, when Ashcroft said he wasn't going to discuss, the discussions ended.

[ Parent ]

Sigh (1.00 / 1) (#2)
by jarober on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:37:33 PM EST

As with the Libby thing, the underlying "crime" doesn't exist, and all the left is doing is calling any differing recollection it can find a lie.

Tell you what, Big Tent. How about I get you and two friends from college together, and ask probing questions about some college incident. When your recollection differs, we'll call it abject lying, ok?

Because being Attorney General (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by andgarden on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:46:40 PM EST

is just like hanging out with your college buddies.

[ Parent ]

This is the dumbest comment (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:50:39 PM EST

I have ever read.

[ Parent ]

Underlying Crime reprise (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:30:30 AM EST

JimakaPPj being pissed off at Edgar resolves to get his gun and hunt Edgar down. Three days later he spots Edgar in the parking lot, cooly draws his gun, fires and misses Edgar completely. Officer Squeaky witnessed the shootinhg and arrests JimakaPPJ for attempted murder.
The underlying crime to attempted murder is murder. Since no proof of the underlying crime exists (no murder = no proof of murder) should D.A. Fitzgerald dismiss the charges?

Here is another:

Jarober and JimakaPPJ decide to rob Riggs Bank. They meet at Edgar's Bar n Grille to plan the robbery. Officer Squeaky, on his day off, is sitting in the next booth trying to decide which horse to bet on in the 5th race at Pompano and overhears Jarober and JImakaPPJ planning their robbery. Squeaky arrests both and charges them with conspiracy. Since no proof of the underlying crime exists (the underlying crime to the conspiracy being the bank robbery which did not occur) should D.A. Fitzgerald dismiss the charges?

Can we stop with the no underlying crime nonsense now? Perjury is a crime defined as a material mistatement or omission of fact, under oath. The key word is material. It doesn't matter whether the "underlying crime" exists or not (and I reject your assertion in eithe Libby or Gonzo's case that there was no underlying crine). We don't care abount inconsequential lies under oath or not.

MB - I strongly protest (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:39:33 AM EST

that you use my moniker in such a manner.

At best it is terrible bad taste.

But then it is Molly that I am writing to. No reason to be surprised.

And your comparsion is silly. You write that Squeaky has witnessed the attempt. The charge would be attempted murder. The crime of murder has nothing to do with anything and wouldn't even come up.

In this case the SP knew within days of his appointment, if not on the same day, that Armitage was the leaker. Once leaked, it is leaked.
What happens then, does Valerie Plame become a word that all know, but none may dare speak?

Was that the point of his investigation? Who said what everyone knew??

What unhappy nonsense this has all become.

[ Parent ]

: I'm sorry Jim (none / 0) (#22)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:19:46 AM EST

I didn't realize you were so senstive.
According to the conservatie underlying crime theory- there is no crime of attempt, because there was no underlying crime.
I agree with you wholeheartedly BTW. Attempted murder is a crime, AS IS PERJURY.
Check and mate.

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]
: Conspiracy is the essence (none / 0) (#23)
by NMvoiceofreason on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:20:21 AM EST

Was there a conspiracy, by the Vp and others, to retaliate against Joe Wilson - yes. Can you prove it in court? No. Why? Because the co-conspirators closed ranks on promises of being pardoned. And that is yet another crime (obstruction of justice).

[ Parent ]

Next time (none / 0) (#7)
by NMvoiceofreason on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:26:58 AM EST

...that Republicans say they are interested in national security, ask them about the effect of burning a NOC, a non-official cover agent, the blackest of the black, involved in counter-terrorism and suppression of weapons of mass destruction, like the A.Q. Khan ring. Then tell them that you exposed their contacts for partisan political gain. Were Eisenhauer president you'd be shot or hanged for such treason.

...that Republicans say that they support the troops, give them actual medical care and support for their families. Oh, and a strategy. That might be helpful too.

...that Republicans say that we should listen to the generals, ask them about Gen. Shinseki and where the 400 thousand troops went.

[ Parent ]

NM (none / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:16:22 AM EST

You should also ask them about the NOC's husband doing things that bring attention to her.

And why she was working at the CIA's quarters.

And why she was making political contributions in her work name.

And why the CIA was doing jack to protect her.

At that point a reasonable person might assume that she wasn't really NOC.

[ Parent ]

: You sir, are a traitor (none / 0) (#20)
by NMvoiceofreason on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:03:40 AM EST

The husband was send by VP Dick Cheney, not his wife.
It is none or your business where a NOC works, and no justification for outing her. Or would I be justified in giving out copies of the Single Integreated Operational Plan (SIOP - our plan for nuclear war) just because it was at the CIA instead of the Pentagon?
NOC's are allowed to do anything a normal person might do. You do not have her list of controls, nor were you here control agent. Until you do, please do not substitute uninformed speculation from Republican talking points for knowing something. It keeps getting your party in trouble.
Why does the CIA have to defend itself from attacks by people who have taken sworn oaths to protect and defend the Constitution? By joining in their attack, on the CIA, on its soldiers, you too have attacked the United States of America, and you are a traitor.
Wheteher she is or is not a NOC is not for the incompetent to decide. Get some facts. Then think.

[ Parent ]

Whatever It Is (none / 0) (#1)
by squeaky on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:50:06 PM EST

He seems like he is being coached by Bush. A similar smirk while lying.

Gonzo's arrogance is uniatry, they are pushing to test Cheney's theory.

Defund them all.

To go back to your question, Big Tent Democrat (none / 0) (#9)
by mmeo on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:09:38 AM EST

you asked why Gonzales answered the questions posed about the US attorney firings in the first place. Yes, that was the topic, was it not? -- the firings of 8 (or 9, depending on how you count) perfectly competent US attorneys.

Well, don't you recall how the White House said there wasn't any scandal there? And, to prove it, Gonzales was going to answer any question he possibly could?

Yeah, I think he's a fool and a knave.

I keep thinking (none / 0) (#10)
by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:44:54 AM EST

Gonzales isn't smart enough to have conceived of the idea of ambushing Ashcroft at the hospital. Nor do I think he would have the guts on his own. I think someone had to tell him to do it. Was it Bush? Or was it Cheney? I suspect the latter.

Gonzales is only still hanging on because Bush doesn't want him to go. He's only in the job in the first place because of Bush's misplaced sense of loyalty, which he seems to equate with friendship.

The minute Bush tells Gonzales to go, he'll be gone, and not a minute sooner.

: Gonzales (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Downtowner on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:50:22 AM EST

is only in the job because of Gonzales' misplaced loyalty.
I keep hearing about Bush's loyalty to him (and others), but the shoe is on the other foot: Bush places those who are so loyal they will unquestioningly act the fool or knave on command in key positions, and will reward them handsomely - with pardons when necessary.
It's the arrangement, the deal, the way it works. Business.

[ Parent ]
: I concur in part and dissent in part: (none / 0) (#14)
by scribe on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:23:11 AM EST

The core of my dissent is in saying "Gonzo ain't that bright." The questions I have with that conclusion are:
(1) The wattpower is there. Gonzo went to three Univs of higher learnin' - Air Force, Rice and Harvard Law. He and I are roughly of an age, so I think I know (or can at least give an informed opinion on) what it takes to have gotten into any of those three institutions. He's got to be at least as bright as I am, maybe moreso. Assume for the second he got a hand getting into Air Force - regardless of why he left, he still left to go to Rice. Having known a few folks who attended there (and from similarly selective schools - like my alma mater) you can't be a dolt or even dolty to get in and graduate. Then there's Harvard Law - I didn't even bother trying to get in there when I applied to law school (though I probably should have just for the heck of it) because I didn't think I could have gotten in. Gonzo did, and he graduated against the most competitive and bright of the most competitive and bright.
(2) Set aside the wattpower - one does not need intellectual distinction to be a good mob boss, a good capitalist, or a good leader/manager of adults. The personality traits those skills (all sort of similar) require are consistency, attention to detail, a willingness to both reward and (more important) punish, and recognition of and focus on the objective. These could all fall under the bigger umbrella of "animal cunning". And, animal cunning coupled with a little thought could cook up the scheme to circumvent Comey by going to Ashcroft - who outside that close circle already in on the scheme would have ever found out about their going to him in the hospital, had Risen not published? That article was the thread on the sweater. And then the Admin could have dealt with Comey, et al., more at leisure - which is what they did anyway.
And, even assuming Gonzo is the dolt he presents as, one would not have to worry about knowing the ins and outs of the legalities involved. This because he had subordinate lawyers - very bright ones - who could come up with a legal-lawful sounding argument for any occasion. I mean, by this time they had justified torture, indefinite incarceration, aggressive war, and wholesale wiretapping of innocents. Thinking they couldn't come up with some argument to support going around Comey is just being naive.
All we know of Gonzo is his public face - when they trot him out. For all we know, in private he could be entirely different. I think it was Phil Hartman on SNL doing a skit around the time of Iran-Contra which I'll call "Reagan: Jekyll and Hyde", in which Ronnie was his usual mellow, daft self in public, and then turned into something entirely different when the cameras went off.
I will agree, Gonzo comes across as a crappy liar and a worse witness. He looks like a smirking toad - and toady - when he comes in to testify. Like a kid hauled before the principal who knows all the principal can do is yell at him. But, I further agree that there is a method to his lying and choice of answers and both an overriding series of objectives and logic to his lying and choice of answers. He's just been flinging a mess out there to confuse the pursuers.

[ Parent ]
: I concur in part and dissent in part: (none / 0) (#15)
by scribe on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:36:29 AM EST

The core of my dissent is about those saying "Gonzo ain't that bright." The questions and disagreements I have with that conclusion are:
(1) The wattpower is there. Gonzo went to three Univs of higher learnin' - Air Force, Rice and Harvard Law. He and I are roughly of an age, so I think I know (or can at least give an informed opinion on) what it takes to have gotten into any of those three institutions. He's got to be at least as bright as I am, maybe moreso. Assume for the second he got a hand getting into Air Force - regardless of why he left, he still left to go to Rice. Having known a few folks who attended there (and from similarly selective schools - like my alma mater) you can't be a dolt or even dolty to get in and graduate. Then there's Harvard Law - I didn't even bother trying to get in there when I applied to law school (though I probably should have just for the heck of it) because I didn't think I could have gotten in. Gonzo did, and he graduated against the most competitive and bright of the most competitive and bright.
(2) Set aside the wattpower - one does not need intellectual distinction to be a good mob boss, a good capitalist, or a good leader/manager of adults. The personality traits those skills (all sort of similar) require are consistency, attention to detail, a willingness to both reward and (more important) punish, and recognition of and focus on the objective. These could all fall under the bigger umbrella of "animal cunning". And, animal cunning coupled with a little thought could cook up the scheme to circumvent Comey by going to Ashcroft - who outside that close circle already in on the scheme would have ever found out about their going to him in the hospital, had Risen not published? That article was the thread on the sweater. And then the Admin could have dealt with Comey, et al., more at leisure - which is what they did anyway.
And, even assuming Gonzo is the dolt he presents as, one would not have to worry about knowing the ins and outs of the legalities involved. This because he had subordinate lawyers - very bright ones - who could come up with a legal-lawful sounding argument for any occasion. I mean, by this time they had justified torture, indefinite incarceration, aggressive war, and wholesale wiretapping of innocents. Thinking they couldn't come up with some argument to support going around Comey is just being naive.
All we know of Gonzo is his public face - when they trot him out. For all we know, in private he could be entirely different. I think it was Phil Hartman on SNL doing a skit around the time of Iran-Contra which I'll call "Reagan: Jekyll and Hyde", in which Ronnie was his usual mellow, daft self in public, and then turned into something entirely different when the cameras went off.
I will agree, Gonzo comes across as a crappy liar and a worse witness. He looks like a smirking toad - and toady - when he comes in to testify. Like a kid hauled before the principal who knows all the principal can do is yell at him. But, I further agree that there is a method to his lying and choice of answers and both an overriding series of objectives and logic to his lying and choice of answers. He's just been flinging a mess out there to confuse the pursuers. We have to assume some level of internal consistency and try to find what that is that this mess explains.

[ Parent ]

My impression (none / 0) (#21)
by chemoelectric on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:07:15 AM EST

My impression is that the language is indeed carefully crafted, but it is simply one in a small sack full of pre-crafted prevarications that Gonzales mixes freely with impromptu inventions.

Heâ€<sup>TM</sup>s winging it. We have already heard and read of how poorly Gonzales performed when rehearsing for the earlier hearing at which he practically couldn't 'recall' his own name.

Yet another possibility (none / 0) (#25)
by NMvoiceofreason on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:55:36 AM EST

Since the TSP was announce, briefers from the administration have been making the rounds of everyone in the program, reminding them that they may not confirm or deny information about the program, including its name. This is standard NSA policy.

Gonzo was therefore unable to confirm that the program under discussion was or was not the program described by the President, because he was legally bound by his oath not to do so.