NBC's Nightly News reported on Democratic call for perjury investigation of Gonzales, but not the alleged lie
SUMMARY: On NBC's Nightly News, correspondent Chip Reid reported that senators "called for a special counsel to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales perjured himself on matters ranging from the administration's domestic eavesdropping to the firing of U.S. attorneys," but he did not repeat any of the testimony Gonzales gave that the senators alleged were false or misleading, nor did he note FBI Director Robert Mueller's July 26 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, which called Gonzales' testimony into question.
On the July 26 edition of NBC's Nightly News, discussing a request by Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Russell D. Feingold (D-WI), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) for a special counsel to investigate Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, correspondent Chip Reid reported that the senators "called for a special counsel to investigate whether Gonzales perjured himself on matters ranging from the administration's domestic eavesdropping to the firing of U.S. attorneys," but not the evidence supporting the senators' allegations. Reid's report included statements from Sens. Schumer and Feinstein asserting that Gonzales had failed to tell the truth during his July 24 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as statements made during the hearing by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who said that he "did not trust" Gonzales, and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who told the attorney general, "I do not find your testimony credible." However, Reid did not report any of the testimony Gonzales gave that the senators alleged were false or misleading, nor did he mention FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III's July 26 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, which called Gonzales' testimony into question and appeared to support the senators' assertions.
The July 26 broadcast was the first in which Nightly News reported on Gonzales' July 24 testimony or the controversy surrounding it, having not done so on either the July 24 or July 25 editions of the program.
As Media Matters for America has documented, The Washington Post noted on May 17 that Gonzales told two congressional committees in February 2006 that the NSA warrantless domestic wiretapping program "had not provoked serious disagreement involving [former deputy Attorney General James B.] Comey or others." At a May 15 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, however, Comey testified that on March 10, 2004, Gonzales, who was White House counsel at the time, had attempted to pressure then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to approve the warrantless domestic surveillance program. At the time, Ashcroft was ill at a hospital and had transferred his official powers to Comey, who had refused to recertify the legality of the program. But during his July 24 testimony, Gonzales claimed that a March 10, 2004, briefing with the congressional "Gang of Eight" and the subsequent confrontation among Gonzales, Comey, Ashcroft, and others in Ashcroft's hospital room concerned "other intelligence activities," not the NSA warrantless wiretapping program:
SPECTER: First of all, Mr. Attorney General, what credibility is left for you when you say there's no disagreement and you're a party to going to the hospital to see Attorney General Ashcroft under sedation to try to get him to approve the program?
GONZALES: The disagreement that occurred, and the reason for the visit to the hospital, Senator, was about other intelligence activities. It was not about the terrorist surveillance program that the president announced to the American people. Now, I would like the opportunity --
SPECTER: Mr. Attorney General, do you expect us to believe that?
GONZALES: Well, may I have the opportunity to talk about another very important meeting in connection with the hospital visit that puts it into context?
It was an emergency meeting in the White House situation room that afternoon. It involved senior members of the administration and senior -- the bipartisan leadership of the Congress, both House and Senate, as well as the bipartisan leadership of the House and Senate intel committees, the "Gang of Eight."
The purpose of that meeting was for the White House to advise the Congress that Mr. Comey had advised us that he could not approve the continuation of vitally important intelligence activities despite the repeated approvals during the past two years of the same activities.
SPECTER: OK. Assuming you're leveling with us on this occasion --
In a July 25 article, The New York Times reported that Sen. Jay Rockefeller IV (WV) and Rep. Jane Harman (CA), who in 2004 were the ranking Democrats on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and attended the March 10, 2004, meeting at the White House, "insisted that there was only one N.S.A. program, making Mr. Gonzales's assertions inaccurate." Indeed, a May 2006 memorandum sent by then-National Intelligence Director John Negroponte to then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) also stated that the briefing concerned the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program," the administration's preferred name for the NSA program.
Further, a July 27 Washington Post article reported that "FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III yesterday contradicted the sworn testimony of his boss, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, by telling Congress that a prominent warrantless surveillance program was the subject of a dramatic legal debate within the Bush administration." As the Post noted, Mueller confirmed during his testimony that, based on a discussion he had with Ashcroft after Gonzales left Ashcroft's hospital room, the March 10, 2004, hospital room confrontation, which Mueller did not observe firsthand, concerned "an NSA program that has been much discussed":
REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE [D-TX]: So my question to you, first of all: Did you ever speak with either Mr. Gonzales or Mr. [then-White House chief of staff Andrew] Card while they were at the hospital?
MUELLER: No, ma'am.
JACKSON LEE: And if you did not do that, did any of your agents speak to those individuals?
MUELLER: I don't believe so. We -- I arrived at the hospital after Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card had left.
JACKSON LEE: The discussion -- and I don't know if you did arrive -- it was -- did you have an opportunity to talk to General [sic] Ashcroft or did he discuss what was discussed in the meeting with Attorney General Gonzales and the chief of staff?
MUELLER: I did have a brief discussion with Attorney General Ashcroft.
JACKSON LEE: I'm sorry?
MUELLER: I did have a brief discussion with Attorney General Ashcroft after I arrived.
JACKSON LEE: And did he indicate the details of the conversation?
MUELLER: I prefer not to get into conversations that I had with the attorney general. At the time I -- again, he was entitled to expect that our conversations --
JACKSON LEE: And I respect that. Could I just say, did you have an understanding that the discussion was on TSP?
MUELLER: I had an understanding that the discussion was on a NSA program, yes.
JACKSON LEE: I guess we use "TSP," we use "warrantless wiretapping," so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?
MUELLER: I -- it was -- the discussion was on a national -- a NSA program that has been much discussed, yes.
In their request for an investigation, made in a July 26 letter to Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, Schumer, Feinstein, Feingold, and Whitehouse specifically alleged that Gonzales' statements regarding the March 10, 2004, meeting and subsequent hospital room confrontation were among the "half-truths and misleading statements" made by Gonzales before the Senate Judiciary Committee which required the appointment of a special counsel:
- "Attorney General Gonzales testified on February 6, 2006 that within the Administration 'there has not been any serious disagreement about the [Terrorist Surveillance Program].' Yet. Attorney General Gonzales indicated in his testimony this week that the purpose of the March 10, 2004 briefing for the 'gang of eight' was to advise them 'that Mr. Comey had informed us that he would not approve the continuation of a very important intelligence activity.' General Hayden stated in unclassified testimony on May 18, 2006 that the very same briefing for the 'gang of eight' was on the 'warrantless surveillance program.' Thus, Mr. Gonzales's statements about the lack of disagreement regarding the surveillance program are deeply troubling."
- "Attorney General Gonzales testified that the purpose of the March 10, 2004, meeting 'was for the White House to advise the Congress that Mr. Comey had advised us that he could not approve the continuation of vitally important intelligence activities,' which the Attorney General later testified was 'not' the NSA wiretapping program. This is contradicted by an unclassified letter from John Negroponte, then Director of National Intelligence, to then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert on May 17, 2006, describing the same 'Gang of Eight' briefing as being 'on the Terrorist Surveillance Program.' "
By contrast to Reid's report, on the July 26 edition of ABC's World News, correspondent Jake Tapper, while quoting the same remark from Comey, noted that Comey was testifying that the confrontation at the hospital room involved an attempt to obtain Ashcroft's approval of "the surveillance program" and that Gonzales testified that the "dispute was about different classified programs."
From the July 26 edition of NBC's Nightly News:
WILLIAMS: Now we go to Capitol Hill, where Democrats in Congress today ratcheted up their showdown with the Bush administration on two major fronts today, beginning with a call for a special prosecutor to investigate the United States attorney general. NBC's Chip Reid has the latest.
LEAHY [video clip]: Mr. Attorney General, please stand.
REID: The question: Has Attorney General Alberto Gonzales repeatedly misled Congress while testifying under oath? The answer, four Democratic senators said today, is yes.
SCHUMER: [video clip] He tells the half truth, the partial truth, and everything but the truth.
REID: In a letter to the Justice Department, the four called for a special counsel to investigate whether Gonzales perjured himself on matters ranging from the administration's domestic eavesdropping to the firing of U.S. attorneys.
FEINSTEIN: [video clip] -- Because he just doesn't tell the truth.
REID: It's been a long, hot spring and summer for Gonzales. He denies the charges, but members of both parties have urged him to step down.
SEN. TOM COBURN [R-OK]: [video clip] And I believe the best way to put it behind us is your resignation.
REID: In May, a former top Justice official testified that as White House counsel, Gonzales tried to get then-Attorney General John Ashcroft -- who was in intensive care -- to sign off on an extension of the controversial secret wiretap program.
COMEY: [video clip] I thought I'd just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man.
REID: This week, the lack of trust boiled over.
LEAHY [video clip]: I am not willing to accept a simple statement of "trust us." I don't trust you.
SPECTER: [video clip] I do not find your testimony credible, candidly.
REID: The Justice Department insists Gonzales has not lied under oath, and the White House today reiterated its strong support for the president's longtime friend.
TONY SNOW (White House press secretary) [video clip]: They've been trying to go after Alberto Gonzales all year. They've come up with dry holes. They've been basically waging a war of character assassination against him, of insinuation.
REID: David Gergen, who's advised four previous presidents, says this president can be loyal to the point of stubbornness.
GERGEN [video clip]: He just starts saying, "The hell with people. I'm going to do what I think is right, and to hell with the critics."
From the July 26 edition of ABC's World News:
TAPPER: Comey was then temporarily running the department while then-Attorney General John Ashcroft recovered from emergency surgery. After Comey refused to sign off on the surveillance program, he says Gonzales, then the White House counsel, went to the intensive care unit to try to get Ashcroft to overrule Comey.
COMEY [video clip]: I was very upset. I was angry. I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man.
TAPPER: Mueller backed that story today.
MUELLER [video clip]: I don't dispute what Mr. Comey says.
TAPPER: But Gonzales, this week, insisted that dispute was about different classified programs.
GONZALES [video clip]: It was about other intelligence activities.
TAPPER: And the White House says some of this confusion stems from the difficulty of discussing classified matters in public.
SNOW [video clip]: There are attempts right now for political reasons to try to draw into the public arena information about classified programs that has remained classified, and so people are being very careful.
TAPPER: But that's not enough for Democrats, who today called for a special prosecutor to investigate whether or not Gonzales perjured himself in his testimony before Congress. One Democrat saying, quote, "His instinct is not to tell the truth, but to dissemble and deceive."















OF COURSE the Attorney General Gonzales has contempt for Congress.
Bush and Cheney have livid contempt for Congress. The GOP faithful all have contempt for Congress. Nixon had contempt for Congress. Ollie North had seething contempt for Congress. Ronald Reagan had contempt for Congress.
Congress contains the representatives of THE PEOPLE, and Republicans have contempt for THE PEOPLE. A Unitary Executive ... THERE is where all the power should reside ... an all-powerful, unquestionable, unaccountable monarch who does not have to follow rule of law, or listen to any other voices in order to rule. THE PEOPLE are just a pain in the ass, impediments to the enacting of measures which are "BEST" for this nation ... which means BEST for the ruling elite, the wealthy, those who have "PROPERTY".
Even Republican Congresspersons have contempt for Congress. They view the job as having one useful function, and one obligation. The obligation is NOT to the people, but instead to the Unitary Executive, with one important proviso: He be a Republican. A Republican Unitary Executive gets support and defense and "cover" from a GOP majority Congress. Rubber stamp, no oversight, and obstruct anything that displeases the ruler.
The second useful function is to go after Democrats, using every Congressional power available. This may seem like a contradiction, but it's NOT ... the use of Congressional power to go after Democrats in no way interferes with the primary obligation: it serves the goal of having an all-powerful Repubican Unitary Executive. Thus, Democrat Presidents must be thwarted and ultimately impeached.
Using Congressional power to go after Democrats is not intended to to create, but to destroy. It is not used to HELP, but to HARM. It is used not for THE PEOPLE, but instead to show contempt for their will, their vote, their "interference" by electing Democrats. When a GOP majority Congress passes a law, it is always to advance the fortunes of the elites, the already wealthy and powerful, and to harm all other Americans. Those in need, the ill, the poor, the elderly, the jobless, those who suffer discrimination ... all are on the GOP's chopping block. Workers, students, and unwed mothers can expect their fortunes to plummet under GOP policy. CEO's will prosper as never before. Again, this is consistent with contempt for THE PEOPLE.
Contempt for Congress is a given, from the GOP. In their contempt, Republicans will push and dare, DARE Congress to object, or do something about the Unitary Executive's minions showing blatant contempt for Congress, for the LAW, and for the Constitution.
If this nation is to survive, the PEOPLE must DEMAND that their representatives STAND UP for law and for the Constitution, and hold the Unitary Executive and his people accountable for their contempt. Because that contempt, ultimately, is contempt FOR THE PEOPLE. And it's THE PEOPLE who have the real power in this nation. If only they will USE it.
That's about the same thing I said in a letter to Nancy Pelosi, in a condensed form. I demanded she put impeachment back on the table. Of course I didn't get a reply, since I'm not actually not in her district and they only answer their constituents. Call me crazy, but if she is Speaker of the House, it seems EVERYONE is among her constituents.
The most disturbing thing I heard this past week is that when Cindy Sheehan protested at John Conyers' office, they were told by Conyers that there would be no impeachment because they didn't have the votes. ANY HOUSE DEMOCRAT who is not in favor if impeachment needs to be replaced next year with someone who has a spine. And impeachment can be done even after a president has left office, for the purpose of denying pensions, and preventing them from holding any other elected position. But the number one reason for impeachment, even if it has no chance of conviction in the Senate, is to get it on the record that this country belongs to the people and it's laws apply to every one of us, even (especially) the privileged.
Jscott, you always have to factor in the Israel Lobby when it comes to US middle-eastern policy. They don't want Bush impeached, he's good for zionism. They pay the Dems big money to keep the war going, to keep the guns and money flowing to Israel and the puppet regimes in the region, to let Bush do what he wants and to keep impeachment off the table....for that would set a precendent of putting arab-killing war criminals on trial and that's the last thing AIPAC wants.
Congress is Israeli-controlled territory. We, the American People, no longer own our government. The Dems and Repubs sold it to AIPAC for a handful of campaign contributions.
I can't agree more, and that was wonderfully written and very succinct, Tex.
It's hard to hear reports about Gonzales being found in Contempt of Congress and not think, "What the hell was your first CLUE?"
Some choice NeoCons gasp and squawk when terms like "Nazi" or "Fascist" are hurled towards the representatives who are exacting this very precise and apparently successful plan, hoping that by alternately crying in objection and throwing the term back at their opponents will some distract the public enough from their own heinous wrongdoings to allow them another day with rebellion staved off. I'll hand this to them. It's working.
Nice racial stereotypes, dude. Even odds you're engaging in what is euphemistcally called "rodent conjoining."
Let the adults speak.
Didn't mean to offend. I really like Lationos as I grew up with them and partied with them in the early 70's. I just despise speedy and got carried away with the Tacos which I also love. Just trying to entertain myself and a friend and possibly conjure up some discourse. So kick back and have a cervasa and a burrito and every thing will be ok in a short while. Think I'll lite up a Panama Red fatty and contemplate the error of my ways.Warning: I'll never be a Ricky Martin Fan though.
just read your last line and think that was a bit rude I think you meant Cocaratcha promulgating. Are you the MMFA PC police? If so you are going to have sore fingers in short order.
Nah, keep it up and your account will eventually be disabled. I imagine that will happen before fingers get sore, as it becomes increasingly evident that you're more interested in posting meaningless studity and bigotry than adding to any form of discourse.
believe what you want. So far, MMFA still practices free speach. There is a lot of meaningless dialog posted on this site.
Hope many of you caught NOW on PBS last night. It was about voter caging by the Republicans, had interviews with Greg Palast, and explains why the U.S. attorneys were fired. Now if cable news would catch on to this story!!!
Palast says that the European press has fully reported the story, while over here there is no mention of it.
Would be a great faux noos special. b.o. and hannity could do the commentary. CNN? Don't you think it would assail the perception the few conservative viewers CNN has of CNN, which is probably tenuous at best? I don't think that bitter pill would go down very well with the right as most still believe as bush does, God facilitated bush gettng "elected". CNN would be labeled by the far right (b.o., hannity and their ilk) as "far-left" just like they do with PBS.
Last night I heard an expert witness say that it looks like Gonzales was talking about the program after Comey recreated it in a form that he and the FBI Director found acceptable. There was not much disagreement about that program.
When Gonzales says that he can't talk about programs because of national security, he's supposedly talking about the program that was controversial - the program that came before the Comey/Gonzales/Ashcroft blow-up in the hospital.
The original program has remained classified. The reconfigured program, the one in existence today, is not classified in the same way.
I think it's a "not lying but a deception nonetheless" kind of thing.
Karl Rove's model of government is permanent republican majority with carefully selected appointees in position to slowly dismantle the constitution. Yhat, in my book, is the formula for dictatorship, something i pray the american people will not stand for. My father always told me that deception is a lie and I believe it is true for I have deceived in the past and known it was a lie. Gonzales is a black eye on Lady Justice.
Poor job by NBC Nightly News. The MSM needs to tell the entire story on how Gonzalez not only committed perjury but has had total contempt for Congress. A prime example of the Bushies.
I don't think I have called for it before -- maybe I have.
If not before then now, if before then I say again, "How can we not impeach this White House?"
Was listening to Diane Rehm's show this past week and it was said that if Gonzales is removed from the Atty Gen post, there's a chance that impeachment can be on the table. For some reason, he is a potential barricade in the process.