The Senate Judiciary Committee will review Alberto Gonzales’ past statements to determine whether Gonzales lied to the committee in 2006 by saying there had been no internal Justice Department dissent over the legality of the president’s Terrorist Surveillance Program (otherwise known as the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program). When confronted by the senators, Gonzales today offered a surprising explanation of his consistency and veracity: he repeatedly suggested there’s a different intelligence program, other than the TSP, that Justice Department officials found legally dubious in 2004. If Gonzales is telling the truth, he just disclosed the existence of a previously unknown intelligence program. If not, the embattled attorney general could be in some serious legal jeopardy.
Gonzales’s “no-dissent” testimony sought to assure outraged Senators that the Justice Department had complete confidence in the controversial warrantless surveillance program known as the TSP, which was first disclosed by the New York Times in December 2005. But that line was cast into serious doubt by ex-Deputy Attorney General James Comey’s May testimony that he thought the TSP was illegal during a stint as acting attorney general in March 2004. Indeed, the top echelon of Justice Department leadership was prepared to resign over the president’s decision to continue a surveillance program without Department authorization.
Today, Gonzales did something absolutely unexpected: he said that Comey’s doubts were about “other intelligence activities” than the warrantless surveillance program President Bush confirmed in December 2005 — i.e., the TSP. That’s how his 2006 statement that the TSP was uncontroversial could still be correct.
But the senators weren’t buying it. And they say that they’ll be examining Gonzales’ statements closely to see whether the attorney general has perjured himself.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) battered Gonzales about the distinction between the TSP and the “other intelligence activities” Gonzales alleges existed. Schumer pointed out that in a June press conference, Gonzales confirmed that Comey was in fact talking about the “highly classified program which the president confirmed to the American people sometime ago” — that is, the TSP. But Gonzales said at the hearing that shortly thereafter, he contacted Washington Post reporter Dan Eggen to retract the statement — and then he stuck to his line about there being “other intelligence activities” that were at issue in March, 2004.
Next up was Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA). The panel’s ranking Republican, listening to Gonzales’s new revelation — or quasi-revelation, as the case may be — said simply, “I do not find your testimony credible.” Specter said that it was obvious that, as Gonzales initially confirmed last month, Comey was testifying about the Terrorist Surveillance Program — meaning that Gonzales was not only lying to the Senate in his 2006 testimony, but lying today about “other intelligence activities” to cover up the lie. His advice to Gonzales was “to review your testimony carefully” and that the committee should see “if your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable.”
Then it was Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI)’s turn. Feingold, a member of the Senate intelligence committee, has received briefings on the TSP, and he came away from listening to Gonzales believing that the attorney general’s 2006 testimony was “misleading at best.”
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), also a member of the Senate intelligence committee, later said he concurred with Feingold. “I have no choice but to conclude that you intended to deceive us and to mislead us away from the dispute that the Deputy Attorney General [Comey] subsequently brought to our attention.” For his part, chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) advised Gonzales that the panel will “be looking at that transcript very, very closely” — and that Gonzales should, too.
That might represent a final chance for Gonzales to step back from the brink of a perjury investigation. Whatever Gonzales expected to get out of today’s hearing, he left the Senate having raised two lingering and mutually exclusive questions: whether the Bush administration has pursued a second secret, internally controversial intelligence program of dubious legality; or whether the attorney general of the United States lied under oath. Gonzales looked this morning like he had beaten back his political foes. What he probably didn’t expect is that this afternoon, he became his own worst enemy.
Here are the transcripts:
SCHUMER: Those are your words, sir.
So please help us understand how you didn’t mislead the committee.
You just admitted to me there was only one program that the president confirmed in December of 2005. I asked you, “Was there dissent?” You said no.
Now you’re saying — you said in a letter to me there was — well, there was — there was dissent over other intelligence activities. But your June 5th statement confirms that what Comey was testifying about, because he had then testified, was the very program, sir — the very program that you said there was no dissent to.
How can you say you haven’t deceived the committee?GONZALES: Well, I stand by what I said to the committee. This press conference is one that I would like to look at the question, I would like to look at my response.
SCHUMER: OK, we’re going to bring it up to you right now, sir. OK?
(CROSSTALK)
GONZALES: Good.SCHUMER: These are your words, right? You don’t deny that these are your words. This was a public press conference.
GONZALES: I’m told that in fact here in the press conference I did misspeak, but I also went back and clarified it with the reporter.
SCHUMER: You did misspeak?
GONZALES: Yes. But I went back and clarified it with the reporter…
SCHUMER: When was that? And which — what was the reporter’s name?
GONZALES: At The Washington Post two days later.
(CROSSTALK)
GONZALES: Dan Egan (ph) was the reporter.SCHUMER: OK. Well, we’ll want to go follow up with him.
But the bottom line is this: You just admitted there was just one program that the president confirmed in December…
GONZALES: The president…
SCHUMER: … just one. Is that correct, sir?
GONZALES: The president talked about a set of activities…
SCHUMER: No, I am just asking you a yes-or-no simple question, just as Senator Specter has. And just like Senator Specter and others here, I’d like to get an answer to that question.
You just said there was one program. Are you backing off that now?GONZALES: The president…
SCHUMER: Was there one program or was there not that the president confirmed?
GONZALES: The president confirmed the existence of one set of intelligence activities.
SCHUMER: Fine.
Now let’s go over it again, sir, because I think this shows clear as could be that you’re not being straightforward with this committee; that you’re deceiving us.
You then — then you said in testimony to this committee in response to a question that I asked, “There has not been any disagreement about the program the president confirmed.”
Then Jim Comey comes and talks about not just mild dissent, but dissent that shook the Justice Department to the rafters.SCHUMER: And here, on June 5th, you say that Comey was testifying about the program the president confirmed.
You, sir…GONZALES: And I’ve already said…
SCHUMER: Sir.
GONZALES: … I have clarified my statement on June 5th. Mr. Comey was talking about a disagreement that existed with respect to other intelligence activities.
SCHUMER: How can we — this is constant, sir, in all due respect with you. You constantly make statements that are clear on their face that you’re deceiving the committee. And then you go back and say, “Well, I corrected the record two days later.”
How can we trust your leadership when the basic facts about serious questions that have been in the spotlight, you just constantly change the story, seemingly to fit your needs to wiggle out of being caught, frankly, telling mistruths?It’s clear here. It’s clear. One program. That’s what you just said to me. That’s what locks this in. Because before that, you were, sort of, alluding — in your letter to me on May 17th, you said, “Well, there was one program,” — you said there was the program, TSP, and then there were other intelligence activities.
GONZALES: That’s correct.
SCHUMER: You wanted us to go away and say, “Well, maybe it was other” — wait a second, sir. Wait a second.
GONZALES: And the disagreements related to other intelligence activities.
SCHUMER: I’ll let you speak in a minute, but this is serious, because you’re getting right close to the edge right here.
You just said there was just one program — just one. So the letter, which was, sort of, intended to deceive, but doesn’t directly do so, because there are other intelligence activities, gets you off the hook, but you just put yourself right back on here.GONZALES: I clarified my statement two days later with the reporter.
SCHUMER: What did you say to the reporter?
GONZALES: I did not speak directly to the reporter.
SCHUMER: Oh, wait a second — you did not.
(LAUGHTER)
OK. What did your spokesperson say to the reporter?GONZALES: I don’t know. But I told the spokesperson to go back and clarify my statement…
SCHUMER: Well, wait a minute, sir. Sir, with all due respect — and if I could have some order here, Mr. Chairman — in all due respect, you’re just saying, “Well, it was clarified with the reporter,” and you don’t even know what he said. You don’t even know what the clarification is.
Sir, how can you say that you should stay on as attorney general when we go through exercise like this, where you’re bobbing and weaving and ducking to avoid admitting that you deceived the committee? And now you don’t even know.
I’ll give you another chance: You’re hanging your hat on the fact that you clarified the statement two days later. You’re now telling us that is was a spokesperson who did it. What did that spokesperson say?
Tell me now, how do you clarify this?GONZALES: I don’t know, but I’ll find out and get back to you.
SCHUMER: How do you clarify this? This is serious, because it looks like you’ve deceived us.
GONZALES: Well…
LEAHY: In your own words, how would you clarify it?
SCHUMER: How would you clarify it? You don’t need to — if you, sir…
GONZALES: What I would — what I would say — let me answer the question.
SCHUMER: If you want to be attorney general, you should be able to clarify it yourself, right now, and not leave it to a spokesperson who you don’t know what he said.
Tell me how you clarify it.GONZALES: Mr. Comey’s testimony about the hospital visit was about other intelligence activities — disagreement over other intelligence activities.
GONZALES: That’s how we’d clarify it.
SCHUMER: That is not what Mr. Comey says. That is not what the people in the room say.
GONZALES: That’s how we clarify it.
SCHUMER: Explain that again, because it still doesn’t add up.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHUMER: You said there’s one program the president confirmed.
Are you saying Mr. Comey didn’t disagree with the program that the president confirmed in December?GONZALES: What I’m saying is…
SCHUMER: That’s what you’re saying here.
GONZALES: … the disagreement which Mr. Comey testified about was about other intelligence activities.
SCHUMER: Mr. Chairman, I think we have to pursue this at some point. Because this is — I’ve never heard anything quite like this.
LEAHY: Could I ask, if I might, you said you made a clarification to some — to a reporter. This is such a significant and major point. Did you ever offer such a clarification to either Senator Specter or myself?
GONZALES: You mean in terms of what was said at the press conference?
LEAHY: Yes.
GONZALES: I don’t believe so. But I think my correspondence and testimony is accurate. The statement at the press conference was not accurate, and I corrected it. That was corrected.
SCHUMER: But, Mr. Chairman, if I might, now what the attorney general is saying the way this is clarified is that Jim Comey was not talking about the program the president…
LEAHY: I’m going to ask for a review of the transcript, both of what Mr. Comey said…
SCHUMER: Everyone knows that’s not true.
LEAHY: … and what Mr. Gonzales said. There’s a discrepancy here in sworn testimony. We’re going to have to ask who’s telling the truth, who’s not.
SPECTER: Going back to the question about your credibility on whether there was dissent within the administration as to the terrorist surveillance program, was there any distinction between the terrorist surveillance program in existence on March 10th, when you and the chief of staff went to see Attorney General Ashcroft, contrasted with the terrorist surveillance program which President Bush made public in December of 2005?
GONZALES: Senator, this is a question that I should answer in a classified setting, quite frankly, because now you’re asking me to hint or talk — to hint about our operational activities. And I’d be happy to answer that question, but in a classified setting.
SPECTER: Well, if you won’t answer that question, my suggestion to you, Attorney General Gonzales, is that you review this transcript very, very carefully. I do not find your testimony credible, candidly.
GONZALES: I certainly would endeavor to do that, Senator.
I guess I’m very surprised at your conclusion that I may have been misleading, if, in fact, you understood the briefings in the Intel Committees, quite frankly.
I find your statement surprising, so I look forward to your correspondence.FEINGOLD: I look forward to your — the information in the classified setting and to your public attempts to set this straight. And I strongly disagree with your analysis of how somebody would come down as to whether you were misleading.
