Gonzales Is Challenged on Wiretaps (Feingold Says AG Misled Senate)

[KittyWampus]

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

Gonzales Is Challenged on Wiretaps
Feingold Says Attorney General Misled Senators in Hearings

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 31, 2006; A07

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.

snip
"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.

[Benhurst]

1. As if it matters in BushAmerica.

[underpants]

2. Wow Gonzo really sucks at that non answering huh?

"I don't know"
"I don't remember"
"LEt me get back to you on that"
"Because the Department of Justice said so"

He could have just written those down on cards and flipped them up randomly.

[magellan]

3. Busted

Not that we'll ever see justice, but it's another nice "Told ya so" for our dying democracy.

K&R

[AndrewJacksonFaction]

4. Wow.

[Mandate My Ass]

5. It's called perjury, not "misleading"

He lied under oath and that is a crime.

[slide to the left]

6. WTF

Isn't that purgury, or was he not under oath?

[Kagemusha]

7. Intentionally misleading congress is also a 5-year felony.

But most people wouldn't know that...

And um, not to put too fine a point on it, who's gonna charge the Attorney General?

[Festivito]

22. Two counts.

It was the policy, and, the question was not a "hypothetical situation."

[Demeter]

37. Congress, I Expect

It's their beat.

[Synnical]

8. Here's the letter:

http://feingold.senate.gov/Gonzales_NSA_13006.pdf

Includes transcript of some Q&A from the confirmation hearing.

[Roland99]

9. Laws? Laws? They don't need no steenkin' laws.

Long Live The King!

[stepnw1f]

10. GOP Dishonesty Once Again Exposed! (nt)

[Supersedeas]

31. With the Party controlled corporate media follow-up?

[stepnw1f]

35. No... with the Article Posted and hopefully Printed So We

CAN TELL OTHERS THE TRUTH.

[tiptoe]

34. Neocon Standard Operating Procedure: The End Justifies the Means

Calling it "GOP Dishonesty" mischaracterizes the insidious, nastier "End justifies the means" modus operandi of the controlling Neoconservatives...where "honesty" and "truth" and "morality" and "good and evil" and "Christian principles" and "pro-life" are only criteria for the Neocons when such concepts are useful for attaining their unexplicated goals: Lies that start mass-murderous wars, policies of deliberate sabotage of government services that lead to 1000s unnecessary dead and displaced in Louisiana, deliberate "incompetence" (Hillary finally catching on), deliberate exposure of CIA agents and operations, deliberate build-up of the national debt, deliberate draining of revenues by tax cuts for the upper 1% during "war" time, NSA wiretapping of American citizens without warrant...these are goals of the Neocons (not the "Grand Old Party" of Eisenhower and Reagan), better served without recourse to honesty and truth, rather through any means necessary.

The Neocon agenda -- "creative destruction" -- was never laid out to the American people during election campaigns...Who would have voted for that truth?

Ane now Alito is on the Supereme Court to declare any laws hindering the President's "unitary executive" powers -- and possibly even those dealing with treason -- "unconstitutional".

It is all according to script.

[Demeter]

38. NeoCon Ends Don't Even Justify the Ends

let alone the means.

[redqueen]

11. I thought the wiretapping thing started before 9/11...

Don't remember where I read that, though. Hmmm.

[Lasher]

15. You probably read it here at DU

I remember seeing at least one DU thread that proved warrant less domestic surveillance started before 9/11.

On edit: found it http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2039722

[redqueen]

19. The only place to get "uncomfortable" facts is from "biased" sources.

*sigh*

Thanks so much for finding that.

[DearAbby]

23. Do you suppose that those that are going to be doing the NSA hearings

has this information, and would it be a good idea to blast this to the Democrats that will be sitting on the panel? who is sitting on that panel do you know?

[Lasher]

24. Hearings will begin on February 6

The Senate Judiciary Committee will conduct the hearings. Here are all the members:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm

Democratic members probably do, but maybe do not, have the information. You might be doing us all a service if you were to send it to them. What could it hurt?

[Coexist]

12. I wonder why Feingold is leading this...

hmm...:dilemma:

Serious question - I know he is on the intelligence committee, but I thought it would have been.. I don't know... someone else.

[Inuca]

14. Because

he is in the judiciary committee, and he asked the question himslef in the hearings.

[wordpix]

21. because he understands the * presidency & how badly it's screwing

up the nation?

[badgervan]

26. A Good Man

Senator Feingold is a decent, honest, and good man. That is why he is doing this, and that is why I have backed him for 20 years or so. We could do much worse ( and are ) than a Russ Feingold as our President or Vice-President.
We need a few more Feingolds in government.

[alarcojon]

27. Absolutely, badgervan

I have also supported my senator (and I'm proud to be able to say that) for many years.

Welcome to DU! :toast:

[Coexist]

30. I agree all - I love Feingold.

But this is a huge issue - I wonder why a "prominent" Dem wasn't allowed to push this fight? Just wondering - maybe they are "grooming" him.

[gizmo1979]

32. We need a whole slew more of him!

Just afew honest men would be nice.

[converted_democrat]

36. The more I see of him, the more I like him... He really went to bat over

the bad legislation in the Patriot Act.. I really like what Russ stands for...

[Dr Fate]

13. Use the word "lied" and maybe the TV media will cover it.

They don't "mislead"- they lie.

[VegasWolf]

17. The media can't cover it, they would lose their "access".

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

[Dr Fate]

29. Then he has nothing to lose by being more truthful & blunt in his wording.

n/t

[NoAmericanTaliban]

16. Liar Liar pants on Fire

[fooj]

18. Great. Just in time for the SCOTUS to dismiss all charges.

:kick:

[wordpix]

20. Constitution's Article II, Sec. 4 says he can be impeached as a "civil

officer" for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Don't know if lying to Congress about NSA/BushCo spy activities would apply but there will be no impeachment of anyone unless/until we get a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress.

[madmark]

25. So what's the consequence of lying to congress? Nothing?

[mom cat]

28. Depends who is on the Supreme Court ... but they knew that when

they nominated Alito.

[0007]

33. Give me a fucking break!

A Justice Department spokesman said yesterday the department had not yet reviewed the Feingold letter and could not comment. H0 HO Ho

"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.
Appears?