The Latest On Gonzales

No GOP defenders for Gonzo:

Jeralyn, Glenn Greenwald and Anonymous Liberal take apart the NYTimes leaked defense. And I have a new point on the flip.

The news report that President Bush referenced in his confirmation of the program stated that THAT PROGRAM had been the subject of dispute:

In mid-2004, concerns about the program expressed by national security officials, government lawyers and a judge prompted the Bush administration to suspend elements of the program and revamp it.

. . . A complaint from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the federal judge who oversees the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, helped spur the suspension, officials said. The judge questioned whether information obtained under the N.S.A. program was being improperly used as the basis for F.I.S.A. wiretap warrant requests from the Justice Department, according to senior government officials. While not knowing all the details of the exchange, several government lawyers said there appeared to be concerns that the Justice Department, by trying to shield the existence of the N.S.A. program, was in danger of misleading the court about the origins of the information cited to justify the warrants.

One official familiar with the episode said the judge insisted to Justice Department lawyers at one point that any material gathered under the special N.S.A. program not be used in seeking wiretap warrants from her court. Judge Kollar-Kotelly did not return calls for comment.

So when Gonzales testified that the "program the President confirmed" had NOT been subject of dispute, the very report the President referenced in fact DESCRIBED a dispute.

Anonymous Liberal has it right, Gonzo is arguing that he was talking about the program that existed AFTER the dispute was resolved when the question clearly was directed at the whole period of the TSP.

I think it is clear that Gonzales did not testify truthfully.

< Ignatius: Obama Is Bush-Cheney Lite On Iraq Withdrawal | Sunday Afternoon: New Toys >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    um, uh. . . (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:30:17 AM EST
    It's a partisan witch hunt! There was no original crime! Stop trying to criminalize politics! Why do you hate America?!

    No beheading allowed. (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:33:22 AM EST
    An' True 'murcans (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by scribe on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:09:07 PM EST
    all loves a good beheadin'.  It's the Rethuglican way.

    Therefore, anyone agin' it, mus' be a terrist or at least hates 'murca.


    excellent point (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Anonymous Liberal on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 01:27:34 PM EST
    BTD, that's an excellent point.  Bush explicitly references the NY Times article in his confirmation of "the program."  So the "program the president confirmed" and the program the NY Times reported about are the same thing. Therefore Gonzales lied.  

    Thanks (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 01:59:46 PM EST
    Have you got something new written?

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Anonymous Liberal on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 02:44:34 PM EST
    Nope, nothing new yet.  Still digesting everything.  Hopefully tonight I'll have time to put together a new post.  

    I've posted a new theory (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 03:01:40 PM EST
    not really new, just with some fresh speculation drawing on Marty Lederman's analysis.

    Please tell me that you think.


    Deep Doodoo (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 04:23:11 PM EST

    They also plan to call a potentially crucial witness: Jack L. Goldsmith, the former chief of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel. It was Goldsmith who wrote a key opinion concluding the eavesdropping program was illegal. A conservative lawyer now at Harvard, Goldsmith, who declined to comment, will have every incentive to talk. He is due to publish a new book this fall called "The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration." According to its Amazon.com listing, the book will chronicle how the president's "apparent indifference to human rights has damaged his presidency." On the cover are pictures of Bush, Cheney--and Gonzales.

    Michael Isikoff via Laura Rozen

    A misunderstanding (none / 0) (#6)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 01:40:28 PM EST
    I think it is innocent of Gonzales, because he thought 'the whole truth' meant 'the hole truth', or in other words that he was allowed to leave out portions of it.

    "Tinfoily" take (none / 0) (#8)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 02:03:26 PM EST
    at Corrente:

    It's not your voice communications Bush wants. It's your mail...

    1. All email could be deemed "international" by White House lawyers. Remember how they keep saying the surveillance is "international"? Let's ask ourselves what they mean when they parse those words so carefully....

    The legal consequence it that, since the packets are routed based on efficiency, and without regard to geopolitical boundaries, any packet, from any mail arguably goes outside the boundaries of the United States.

    2. The focus of the warrantless surveillance program must be domestic because we don't have enough translators who know Arabic....

    The only conclusion one can draw is that the National Security Agency surveillance program is designed to spy primarily on English speakers...

    So, what "enemy" email are they reading?...My answer is: A conservative estimate is that they're reading all email inside the Beltway... This would account for the curious tendency of many players in this drama to consign important information only to paper.


    Maybe not so tinfoily.