Did Gonzales lie to Congress under oath about the domestic spying program?

[bascule]

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/31/gonzales-misled-congress/

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001318_pf.html

 

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) charged yesterday that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales misled the Senate during his confirmation hearing a year ago when he appeared to try to avoid answering a question about whether the president could authorize warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

 

In a letter to the attorney general yesterday, Feingold demanded to know why Gonzales dismissed the senator's question about warrantless eavesdropping as a "hypothetical situation" during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January 2005. At the hearing, Feingold asked Gonzales where the president's authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.

 

Gonzales said that it was impossible to answer such a hypothetical question but that it was "not the policy or the agenda of this president" to authorize actions that conflict with existing law. He added that he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance, according to a transcript of the hearing.

 

In fact, the president did secretly authorize the National Security Agency to begin warrantless monitoring of calls and e-mails between the United States and other nations soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The program, publicly revealed in media reports last month, was unknown to Feingold and his staff at the time Feingold questioned Gonzales, according to a staff member. Feingold's aides developed the 2005 questions based on privacy advocates' concerns about broad interpretations of executive power.

 

Gonzales was White House counsel at the time the program began and has since acknowledged his role in affirming the president's authority to launch the surveillance effort. Gonzales is scheduled to testify Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the program's legal rationale.

 

"It now appears that the Attorney General was not being straight with the Judiciary Committee and he has some explaining to do," Feingold said in a statement yesterday.

 

A Justice Department spokesman said yesterday the department had not yet reviewed the Feingold letter and could not comment.

[Jim]

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/31/gonzales-misled-congress/

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001318_pf.html

 

I would never accuse anyone of lieing without seeing an actual full transcript of what was asked and what was said. Therefore, we can't answer your question based on this article.

[bascule]

I would never accuse anyone of lieing without seeing an actual full[/b'] transcript of what was asked and what was said. Therefore, we can't answer your question based on this article.

 

Well, had you bothered to click the first link:

 

We have the full transcript of the Feingold/Gonzales exchange posted.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/gonzales-january/

 

SEN. FEINGOLD: I — Judge Gonzales, let me ask a broader question. I’m asking you whether in general the president has the constitutional authority, does he at least in theory have the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law under duly enacted statutes simply because he’s commander in chief? Does he — does he have that power?

 

MR. GONZALES: Senator, I — you — in my judgment, you phrase it sort of a hypothetical situation. I would have to know what — what is the — what is the national interest that the president may have to consider. What I’m saying is, it is impossible to me, based upon the question as you’ve presented it to me, to answer that question. I can say, is that there is a presumption of constitutionality with respect to any statute passed by Congress. I will take an oath to defend the statutes. And to the extent that there is a decision made to ignore a statute, I consider that a very significant decision, and one that I would personally be involved with, I commit to you on that, and one we will take with a great deal of care and seriousness.

 

SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, that sounds to me like the president still remains above the law.

 

MR. GONZALES: No, sir.

 

SEN. FEINGOLD: Again, you know, if this is something where — where it — you take a good look at it, you give a presumption that the president ought to follow the law, that — you know, that’s — to me, that’s not good enough under our system of government.

 

MR. GONZALES: Senator, if I might respond to that, the president is not above the law. Of course he’s not above the law. But he has an obligation, too. He takes an oath as well. And if Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, there is a practice and a tradition recognized by presidents of both parties that he may elect to decide not to enforce that law. Now, I think that that would be –

 

SEN. FEINGOLD: I recognize that, and I tried to make that distinction, Judge, between electing not to enforce as opposed to affirmatively telling people they can do certain things in contravention of the law.

 

MR. GONZALES: Senator, this president is not — I — it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.

 

SEN. FEINGOLD: Finally, will you commit to notify Congress if the president makes this type of decision and not wait two years until a memo is leaked about it?

 

MR. GONZALES: I will to advise the Congress as soon as I reasonably can, yes, sir.

[Jim]

Well' date=' had you bothered to click the first link:

 

 

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/gonzales-january/[/quote']

 

Sorry, I was in a bit of a rush.

 

Mainly, what I take away from this exchange is that Feingold isn't the sharpest tool in the shed:

 

SEN. FEINGOLD: I — Judge Gonzales, let me ask a broader question. I’m asking you whether in general the president has the constitutional authority, does he at least in theory have the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law under duly enacted statutes simply because he’s commander in chief? Does he — does he have that power?

 

MR. GONZALES: Senator, I — you — in my judgment, you phrase it sort of a hypothetical situation. I would have to know what — what is the — what is the national interest that the president may have to consider. What I’m saying is, it is impossible to me, based upon the question as you’ve presented it to me, to answer that question. I can say, is that there is a presumption of constitutionality with respect to any statute passed by Congress. I will take an oath to defend the statutes. And to the extent that there is a decision made to ignore a statute, I consider that a very significant decision, and one that I would personally be involved with, I commit to you on that, and one we will take with a great deal of care and seriousness.

 

No lie here. Gonzales said that Feingold is posing a hypothetical abstract question, which he was. The question is genuinely unanswerable as asked.

 

SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, that sounds to me like the president still remains above the law.

 

MR. GONZALES: No, sir.

 

Nope, no lie there either.

 

SEN. FEINGOLD: Again, you know, if this is something where — where it — you take a good look at it, you give a presumption that the president ought to follow the law, that — you know, that’s — to me, that’s not good enough under our system of government.

 

MR. GONZALES: Senator, if I might respond to that, the president is not above the law. Of course he’s not above the law. But he has an obligation, too. He takes an oath as well. And if Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, there is a practice and a tradition recognized by presidents of both parties that he may elect to decide not to enforce that law. Now, I think that that would be –

 

If "this" is something? This what? Feingold is the poster child for indefinite pronouns.

 

Gonzales' answer made the best out of a dumb question. The president is not above the law. Of course the Supreme law of the land is the Constitution which also gives the President powers too. Gonzales bluntly states that Presidents should not be expected to follow unconstitutional laws. What else Gonzales might have said, we'll never know because Feingold interrupts. You really can't accuse a man of lying (at least honestly) when you do not let him finish answering the question. (I mean that as a general proposition; you didn't accuse Gonzales of lying but just asked the question).

 

SEN. FEINGOLD: I recognize that, and I tried to make that distinction, Judge, between electing not to enforce as opposed to affirmatively telling people they can do certain things in contravention of the law.

 

Eh? Recognize what? Feingold cut him off mid sentence. Affirmatively telling what people? Some third parties? His own staff?

 

MR. GONZALES: Senator, this president is not — I — it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.

 

Man, I feel for Gonzales. With 20/20 hindsight, a better answer might be:

 

"Senator, *speaking VERY slowly now* if the criminal law makes no distinction between failure to enforce and telling people not to obey, then what difference would this make? This is a distinction in the law with which I am utterly unfamiliar. This entire line of questioning was predicated on a grossly abstract, hypothetical question so devoid of facts to be meaningless. All of this said, no, we will not go around willy nilly asking people to violate criminal statutes. That is not our policy. However, as I said just a few seconds ago, the historical practice of Presidents is not to obey unconstitutional laws. If you pass constitutional restrictions and if you do not supersede those laws, then, yes, as a general matter, I agree with what you are trying to ask."

 

SEN. FEINGOLD: Finally, will you commit to notify Congress if the president makes this type of decision and not wait two years until a memo is leaked about it?

 

MR. GONZALES: I will to advise the Congress as soon as I reasonably can, yes, sir.

 

This "type of decision?" A memo is leaked about "it?" Instead of calling Feingold a doofus, Gonzales merely states that he'll do what he reasonably can. I think Gonzales was heroic in dealing with Feingold's obtuse questions.

[Jim]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001318.html

 

If this is the relevant portion of the transcript, you are right. Someone is lying here:

 

Lie #1: Feingold represents that he asked "a question about warrantless eavesdropping." False. Feingold asked a much "broader question" which was frankly incomprehensible. The words "warrant" and "eavesdropping" are not contained in the transcript.

 

Lie #2: Feingold lies that Gonzales misrepresented that warrantless eavesdropping was a "hypothetical situation." A. Feingold didn't ask about warrantless eavesdropping. B. Gonzales said that Feingold was asking a "hypothetical question" which, obviously, he was. Gonzales didn't say anything about some "hypothetical situation."

 

Lie #3: "Feingold asked Gonzales where the president's authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant." More fiction. Search for the word "spy."

 

Lie #4: "Gonzales added that he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance, according to a transcript of the hearing."

 

This is at best sloppy reporting and at worse something far more insidious. Here the Post seems to represent that it checked the transcript. If it didn't, this is gross negligence. If it did check the transcript, the Post is guilty of intentional dishonesty.

 

This should become a scandal.

[Jim]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001318.html'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001318.html

 

If this is the relevant portion of the transcript' date=' you are right. Someone is lying here:

 

Lie #1: Feingold represents that he asked "a question about warrantless eavesdropping." False. Feingold asked a much "broader question" which was frankly incomprehensible. The words "warrant" and "eavesdropping" are not contained in the transcript.

 

Lie #2: Feingold lies that Gonzales misrepresented that warrantless eavesdropping was a "hypothetical situation." A. Feingold didn't ask about warrantless eavesdropping. B. Gonzales said that Feingold was asking a "hypothetical question" which, obviously, he was. Gonzales didn't say anything about some "hypothetical [b']situation.[/b]"

 

Lie #3: "Feingold asked Gonzales where the president's authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant." More fiction. Search for the word "spy."

 

Lie #4: "Gonzales added that he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance, according to a transcript of the hearing."

 

This is at best sloppy reporting and at worse something far more insidious. Here the Post seems to represent that it checked the transcript. If it didn't, this is gross negligence. If it did check the transcript, the Post is guilty of intentional dishonesty.

 

This should become a scandal.

 

I'm sure by now the someone has advised the Washington Post as to the true facts. I'm sure we'll see the front page correction and apology to Mr. Gonzales any hour now. I think I'll bookmark http://www.washingtonpost.com/ so I'll be the first to see it!

[Jim]

I'm sure by now the someone has advised the Washington Post as to the true facts. I'm sure we'll see the front page correction and apology to Mr. Gonzales any hour now. I think I'll bookmark http://www.washingtonpost.com/[/url'] so I'll be the first to see it!

 

I'm going to be out for most of the rest of the day so it looks like I'll miss the Post's apology. Dang....

[Jim]

More Washington Post hijinks: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020102465.html