CNN's Arena failed to question Gonzales on accusation that he "misled" Congress
SUMMARY: During an interview with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, CNN Justice Department correspondent Kelli Arena failed to question Gonzales about his 2005 confirmation hearing, in which he responded to a question from Sen. Russ Feingold about whether the president could authorize warrantless domestic wiretaps. At the hearing, Gonzales suggested that Feingold had described a "hypothetical situation," despite the fact that the warrantless surveillance program had been in place since 2001 and that President Bush had reauthorized it numerous times.
The February 2 edition of CNN's The Situation Room featured excerpts of an interview with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, conducted by CNN Justice Department correspondent Kelli Arena, about the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program. At no point in any of the excerpts shown, however, did Arena ask Gonzales about comments he made during his 2005 confirmation hearings, in which Gonzales, under oath, responded to a question from Sen. Russ Feingold (D WI) about whether the president could authorize warrantless domestic wiretaps by suggesting that Feingold had described a "hypothetical situation," despite the fact that the warrantless surveillance program had been in place since 2001 and that President Bush had reauthorized it numerous times. Arena apparently failed to question Gonzales on those responses, even though two days earlier she reported on a January 30 letter Feingold sent to Justice accusing Gonzales of misleading Congress.
Senate Judiciary Committee hearings into the warrantless domestic surveillance program are scheduled to begin on February 6.
At Gonzales's confirmation hearing, Feingold asked Gonzales if the president has the authority to "to authorize warrantless searches of Americans' homes and wiretaps of their conversations in violation of the criminal and foreign intelligence surveillance statutes of this country." Gonzales responded by saying Feingold phrased his question "as sort of a hypothetical situation." In his January 30 letter to Gonzales, Feingold, a member of the Judiciary Committee, wrote: "I am particularly interested in asking about your misleading testimony at your confirmation hearing on January 6, 2005, when I specifically asked you if the President has the authority to authorize warrantless wiretaps in violation of statutory prohibitions. As the attached transcript shows, you initially tried to dismiss my question as 'hypothetical.' "
Arena reported on Gonzales's 2005 statements and Feingold's accusation on the January 31 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, hosted by Wolf Blitzer:
ARENA: Wolf, if the pre-show is any indication, next week's Senate Judiciary hearings on the NSA [National Security Agency] program could get very ugly. Senator Russ Feingold is accusing the attorney general of misleading Congress during his confirmation hearings last year, when he was asked about warrantless wiretaps.
[...]
ARENA: Justice Department officials say that there was nothing misleading about Gonzales's statement and that the president is on firm legal ground. Gonzales is scheduled to testify all day Monday, Wolf.
Nonetheless, at no point during any of the interview clips aired by CNN did Arena ask Gonzales about the comments he made at his 2005 hearing testimony.
From the February 2 edition of the Situation Room:
ARENA: Wolf, Senate Democrats are pushing the attorney general to turn over classified legal opinions on the president's domestic surveillance program in advance of his testimony before a Senate committee on Monday. If he continues to refuse, Senator Dianne Feinstein [D-CA] says the documents should be subpoenaed. In an interview earlier today, the attorney general defended the administration's stance.
[begin video clip]
ARENA: Some members of Congress have said, well, look, there was initially some concern over this program, some inside debate within the Justice Department over this program. That could help them understand what the thinking was at the time, what limitations, if any, were set on this program. Wouldn't that be helpful?
GONZALES: I think, of course, people have a natural curiosity about the operations of the program and on our thinking and the deliberations that went into our analysis. But part of -- part of what we're trying to protect is the ability of lawyers within the department to have a very open and candid discussion, debate about some of these complicated legal issues that I've already outlined. We want to encourage that. People may -- lawyers -- I mean, this is our job, is to discuss difficult issues. And to disagree.
ARENA: We've heard two things from you: that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is still relevant in the war on terror. But I've also heard you say that it doesn't allow you to move quickly enough. Why not just change FISA?
GONZALES: It is clear that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act still remains very, very relevant. And these -- this is a very important tool on the war on terror. But the question whether or not FISA is effective or not is, quite frankly, irrelevant to the question of whether or not the president is acting lawfully. If the president is acting without any kind of legal authority, the fact that FISA is effective or not, quite frankly, doesn't make -- shouldn't make a difference. And if, in fact -- if we all assume or believe that the president is acting lawfully, then the president should -- as commander in chief, should choose which tool is the most effective, the tools under the terrorist surveillance program, the tools under FISA. The president should choose which tool is the most effective in protecting America.
ARENA: Can you tell us any more about how narrow the program is? You said that you would hope to be able to talk in more specific terms. Can you?
GONZALES: The physics are such that we have a great degree of confidence -- I don't know if certainty is the right word, but, certainly, a great degree of confidence that every call that's being surveilled, one end is outside the United States. And we also -- and the president has authorized surveillance with respect to only those calls where we have a reasonable basis, which is very similar to probable cause, a reasonable basis to believe that one person on the call is member of Al Qaeda or a member of a group affiliated with Al Qaeda. That determination is not made by local -- a local appointee.
ARENA: Either -- so, they have to belong to a terrorist group? It's not somebody who is linked to a terrorist group?
GONZALES: It can't be just any terrorist group. It can't be a member of Hezbollah, for example. We are talking about someone who is a member of Al Qaeda or someone how has worked -- a member of a group that is working in concert or assisting or helping al Qaeda, assisting in part of the Al Qaeda effort to destroy the United States.
[end video clip]
ARENA: Now, the attorney general wouldn't get any more specific about the NSA program, arguing that the people who most want to know the operational details are terrorists.
The media don't have the balls to ask a real question like that. They are still buying into GOP talking points and drinking the Bush Administration Kool Aid.
would be a good place to put a news network. You know of any good ones?
Feingold can ask him himself on Feb. 6th.
She probably didn't ask him because Fiengold sounded like an arrogant idiot. If he could stick to one point and ask specific questions without his condescending claptrap, maybe he would get a straight answer.
So, because to you (and we all know what an impartial source you are), it sounded like Feingold was being condescending, a reporter shouldn't alert viewers to this glaring inconsistency in Gonzales' testimony? Politics before professionalism, right?
Not every reporter signs on to media matters to push its agenda. The fact is if you read the transcript and the letter, Feingold is so obnoxious and so poor at asking follow-up questions that you can't tell whether Gonzalez was dancing or trying to figure out what kind of LSD Feingold was on.
So that's the choice, in your mind? Either the reporter is an MMfA fan, or they have to ignore a perfectly relevant and important potential question? Good Lord. If Gonzales thought Feingold was being confusing, then he could have asked for clarification. Is that too much to expect?
Feingold's line of questioning was perfectly clear, and Gonzales said it was "hypothetical" when he knew it wasn't. Just because you don't have the capacity to follow it doesn't give Gonzales the right to say anything and chalk it up such a ridiculous excuse.
Once you realize Leatherhelmet is a SUPPORTER of tyranny, is happy when the "unitary executive" withholds information or lies, and wishes for a "free press" to be eliminated in favor of propaganda, you will understand Leatherhelmet's responses better.
Leatherhelmet's positions seem infuriatingly naive and off topic, if you just ASSUME he's a freedom-loving American who is suspicious of government (like our FOUNDERS were), and who wishes to have an open and accountable government.
Since Leatherhelmet INSISTS on defending the lies, distortions, and evasions of this administration, you scratch your head and wonder where he's coming from, and why he cannot SEE that he's rooting AGAINST freedom and democracy.
Once you understand he's simply an enabler of tyranny, all Leatherhelmet's responses make perfect sense.
...that some members of Congress knew about the NSA program.
So what? They weren't allowed to say anything about it or influence the decision at all, and the CRS concluded that the notification was insufficient. What did you think your point was?
If they were really mad, what stopped them from banding together to start a secret investigation? What stopped them from finding a whistleblower? That is what eventually happened anyway. The most protest was a couple of weak letters. If they were so sure the president was breaking laws and would be impeached they would have found one democratic senator to fall on the sword. The truth is they all know that the president has always had inherent powers and they already were looking like wimps on defense. You are going to be disappointed once again in a few weeks when Bush will win another p.r. victory because he was right once again.
So, when they are sworn to secrecy, they're supposed to break that and find a whistleblower? How do you "find" a whistleblower, exactly? They're supposed to ask around at NSA headquarters if people want to leak the information? Take out a classified ad?
I'm convinced that if a member of Congress did actually go through with your suggestions, you would really be arguing that they did the right thing. Sure.
And you have yet to provide anything to back up your "inherent" argument, outside of your own mindless repitition. There is no precedent for an inherent power to violate stated law - therefore you must be claiming that FISA is unconstitutional, and you run into problems there as well.
I guess the Attorney General of the United States of America is all mixed up, since he is claiming the President has inherent powers from the constitution.
So make sure you watch the hearings so you can't continue to claim I am the only one making this point and I am giving you nothing to back up my point.
I'm not saying you're the only one to use it. What I'm saying is that nobody who has made that argument, including Gonzales, has explained how that doesn't make FISA unconstitutional. And if it is unconstitutional, why nobody addressed that problem, after it was discovered after so many years. Either way, the argument just doesn't make any sense, whether you are the one making it or Gonzales.
How delusionally partisan are you that it seems impossible that Gonzales is just being loyal to his boss? If you want to blindly believe what he says, that's your choice, but don't parrot his as-of-now baseless defense and expect other people to buy it just because Bush's crony is saying the same thing.
that historically the President has the authority as commander-in-chief under the constitution to eavesdrop on communications from outside the U.S. to persons in the U.S. Congress can make no law, including FISA, that can intrude on that authority. That is what Gonzales will claim, along with other arguments regarding what they did to operate inside the FISA law.
Here is a left slanted but interesting article on the data-mining and how complicated it is and also the areas that apparently do not fall under the FISA law. The other day I said that some of this came from datamining . You, as usual, told me I was wrong. Obviously the NSA probably has a hundred different ways to eavesdrop and hunt terrorists but this article sheds light on a few aspects of it.
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
So, you indeed are arguing that FISA is unconstitutional...but it will be difficult for the Administration to claim that, because why would it bother amending it through the Patriot Act if they thought it was unconstitutional? It can't possibly change the problem you are citing in that manner. Read the signing statement;
[link to www.anonymousliberal.com]
As for the article, first of all I find it hilarious that you claim it's "left slanted". Based on...what exactly? What's unfair about it? I don't believe I ever said that they weren't data-mining, what I said is that it's inconsistent with the descriptions provided by the Administration, and the article seems to contradict Hayden's comments, for example;
"The trigger is quicker and a bit softer than it is for a FISA warrant, but the intrusion into privacy is also limited: only international calls and only those we have a reasonable basis to believe involve al Qaeda or one of its affiliates."
Really? Thousands upon thousands of calls were "reasonably" believed to be from al Qaeda, and the washout rate is how high again?
"The purpose of all this is not to collect reams of intelligence, but to detect and prevent attacks. The intelligence community has neither the time, the resources nor the legal authority to read communications that aren't likely to protect us, and NSA has no interest in doing so."
That doesn't explain the washout rate either, and as Hayden says if the eavesdropping wasn't likely to protect us, the legality comes into question.
"Let me talk for a few minutes also about what this program is not. It is not a driftnet over Dearborn or Lackawanna or Freemont grabbing conversations that we then sort out by these alleged keyword searches or data-mining tools or other devices that so-called experts keep talking about...This is targeted and focused."
What I was saying then, and I'm saying now, is that the Administration was lying about the program, because if their descriptions were accurate they could have used FISA. Your article only backs up that point, showing that Hayden was lying and Bush's assertions that it's only for listening to al Queda are not consistent with the washout rate, and explains that the rate made it incompatable with FISA as well. So if they really think that the program as listed in the article might be legal, why wouldn't they describe it in the very same way from the start? Why lie about it?
If you really want to claim that's the situation, then it may fall outside of FISA (I'm not sure exactly how, but it's possible), but then you still have fourth amendment issues as this plan clearly fails the "probable cause" standard, and seemingly the "reasonable basis" one as well...I eagerly look forward to hearing the argument that Bush can overrule the Bill of Rights.
Arena missed the big question. MMFA missed it. Fox News Brian Wilson interviewed Gonzales this week, and missed the big question. All those attorney/commentators on FNC missed it, too. Regardless, Gonzales missed the big answer.
Hasn’t anybody read FISA? Where are the fact checkers? How about MMFA, the fact checker of the fact checkers, reading FISA? What kind of attorney is Gonzales? He shows no sign of having read the law.
Gonzales advises the President to rely on vague Constitutional and war powers theories. No need. Read FISA.
The big question is, doesn’t FISA say first after its definitions when warrants are NOT required? Not only that, doesn’t it say that the FISA court has NO jurisdiction over surveillance in those circumstances? Isn’t it true that those conditions have nothing to do with where the communications originate or terminate? Isn’t it true those conditions have nothing to do with 72 hour grace periods? Isn’t it true they only have to do with who is doing the communicating, and then no warrant is required?
And who might be subjected to no warrant surveillance? One category is “a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons”. That would include Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, the Baath party, the IRA, Radical Islamics like Wahhabis, front organizations of these like the Council on American Islamic Relations, or even less organized, if possible, individual, wannabes, so long as they substantially comprise non-US persons.
And who decides? Oh oh! Gonzales!
The challenge to the critics of the Administration is to show that its no warrant surveillance does not fit the no warrant provisions.
Good luck with that job.
MMFA, check your facts! Here’s a lead for this story: try 50 USC §1802.
Your argument is somewhat contradictory. Gonzales advises to rely on vagueness, but it wouldn't be inconsistent for him to now say that all those procedures were followed and all those standards met? That seems...bizarre, to say the least. Besides, don't the administration's own descriptions belie all this?
Ashcroft and Comey didn't seem to like the sound of it legally, neither does the CRS. It looks like a good argument, but why is it nobody in the Administration cares for it? Are all the lawyers stupid? Or could it be that Ashcroft, Comey and Gonzales all failed to submit the certification under oath that the bill requires?
I'm sure you got all excited when you read about this on Free Republic, but maybe you should have thought about it for a few seconds.
Kelli The Spinster™ "reported" that Osama wanted Americans to vote for John Kerry.
2 Questions she has never answered for this ignorant and slanderous "reporting":
1) If she had Osama as a source, why didn't she tell Bush where he was? 2) If she's using Karl Rove's hyper-political spin as the basis for a news "report" in the middle of an election, why does she still have a job.
Is anyone surprised that CNN doesn't ask appropriate questions? My god, it's like a shiny high school version of "the news".
Just have to keep pointing it out (even if it makes folks like LH above sort of sleepy).
It's been said that ?journalists? lob easy, unchallenging questions to their guests because if they don't the guests won't come back. On the other hand, it's been said that guests, particularly pols, want to appear on the programs - afterall it's free TV time for them. So which is true? ...The content of so-called news, analysis programs these days focuses on the weird, the stupid and the coaarse. The idiot culture has become the ideal culture. Journalism has deteriorated into gossip, sensationalism and manufactured controversy.
This is scary, and I am surprised that the right wing of our political system can't see what is at stake. In effect, Mr. Bush could be testing his resolve to take over our Government. Bit by bit, I see this administration's stonewalling as fishing for who will support aspects of such a beginning should Mr. Bush move down that road. When I see how divided we are, and in my life, I have never seen this country so accepting of the lack of oversight to provide adequate checks and balances on our executive branch of government. Mr. Bush, with the support of most Republicans, will not give up and release any records that would put suspensions to rest. Be careful America, it's only our governmental structure we are faced to make sure we still have.
AG Gonzales said........ "If the president is acting without any kind of legal authority, the fact that FISA is effective or not, quite frankly, doesn't make -- shouldn't make a difference. And if, in fact -- if we all assume or believe that the president is acting lawfully, then the president should -- as commander in chief, should choose which tool is the most effective"
Sound like what he's tring to say is that if we (the citizens of the USA) simply believe that what the president does as it pertains to breaking / going around / or out right ignoring the laws of the land then he isnt breaking the laws and that its all oky-doky for Bush & Co to trample when they want to!!
So long as we "believe" that he isn't........he isn't?? I wonder aloud on this one thinking.......
"What if Clinton had done exactly this in as blantant way that Bush is?" and...........
"What will the right-wingers and neo-cons that defend Bush today on this say if & when the Dems take over and do exactly the same thing but for Liberal causes??" Or is this only allowed when it fits the conservative agenda??
Exactly when did this become the vision of the future for this greatest of all nations???
The president is commander-in-chief. It takes an awful lot to change the constitution and it won't happen in this instance.
The President is NOT commander and Chief of the country he is commander and Chief of the MILITARY. What you seem to be saying is that because the Constitution takes a long time and is hard to change the President can just ignore it. A sure prescription for dictatorship and in NO WAY supportable by law OR logic
"It takes an awful lot to change the constitution and it won't happen in this instance."
-----
Amendment IV
What part of the above is hard to understand? It's written in plain English, and the longest word, "unreasonable," has only 5 syllables. Read the part about warrants. Nowhere does it say, "except for the Commander-in-Chief." And, the C-in-C has no commanding power over civilians, only the military. And even then, disobeying an illegal order is not a crime.
All I have to do is BELIEVE and Tinkerbell will come back to life.
to clap your hands, too.
Like Solon said and Easy to refute wingnuts clearly points out.....That is an outrageous comment you said......
"The president is commander-in-chief. It takes an awful lot to change the constitution and it won't happen in this instance."
Do you really want to live in a country that no longer has a proper "checks & balance" between the three branches??
This isnt even just about Bush....this is about the potential of even a democrat in the oval office becoming to powerful.....
The moment "we the people" allow a specific person, institution, or in this case an entire executive branch unlimited power it would be only a matter of time when they start wanting more.....
"Give a mouse a cookie....and he'll want a glass of milk"
Paralles could be made between what Bush & Co is ultimately asking for and how certain dictators took control over the people of their countries over the centuries.
(Understand I say this not putting this all on Bush....but only that the direction that their arguments take could & will conceivably lead to an "ALL TO POWERFUL EXECUTIVE BRANCH"
Which at that point we no longer look upon any future president as "Mr President" but as a dictator or worse
Is this the future you want for America?
And I thought East Germany fell along with the Berlin Wall in 1989.
What's next? The swatches where secret police can collect odors from your body and clothes, and be placed in an enhancing chemical in a basement warehouse somewhere in Nevada? A room such as this was found in that former state.
Wonder what kinds of other secret surveillances this Administration is doing behind our backs... in the name of the war on terror?
The response is comical... if it wasn't so pathetic.
[link to www.editorandpublisher.com]
"Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., was expected to press Gonzales on why, during Gonzales' confirmation hearings last year to be attorney general, he dismissed as "hypothetical" a situation in which the government conducted warrantless eavesdropping. The NSA program was long in place by then, and Gonzales was White House counsel.
Assistant Attorney General William Moschella, in a letter Friday to Feingold, said Gonzales was referring to as "hypothetical" the idea that Bush would allow warrantless monitoring that was illegal.
That statement is accurate, Moschella wrote in a letter obtained by the AP, because the administration's position is that Bush had legal authority under the 2001 congressional resolution.
Gonzales has acknowledged disagreement with former Justice Department officials, including Attorney General John Ashcroft and Deputy Attorney General James Comey, about the legality of the program. "
I find Gonzales is playing a very careful game with what the President is actually doing vs what the President has authorized. In a very careful recitation of what Mr. Gonzales is allowed to say, Gonzales claims that the President only authorized calls from known terrorist calling from outside the US to would be accomplices within the US. He says this does not mean that they don't address calls from terrorist originating in the US to locations in the US -- a action completed by some other means. Mr. Gonzales would not swear to this; he only says to the best of his knowledge they only focus on Al Qaeda to Al Qaeda calls originating outside the US.
While watching today's Senate hearing with Gonzales, I found myself very upset and very concerned that after involving our country in an illegal war he now sees fit to lie about the actual power his branch of Government has. I feel this President, with the help of the media and partisan Republicans, is making up laws and lies as he gives meaning to his misguided war and spying powers. However, this President can't seem to understand he fits in a framework of laws and a three (3) branch Government. I really am looking forward to what the American people have to say come November. It's truly a time for a complete change in power dynamics, so that means all those who would help support this down right attempt to change the structure of our Government will have to do some real creative lying to stay in office.