In a key exchange between Senator Schumer and Attorney General Gonzales, we heard some obfuscating testimony today where Schumer tried to pin down AGAG about what program he was referring to during the infamous press conference where he finally admitted he "misspoke" and "clarified" his remarks later with a reporter.
It immediately reminded me of the oh-so-careful careful testimonial dance discussed in a Frontline episode called "Spying on the Home Front." I found this Frontline program so fascinating and frightening that I taped it, and I have watched it many times.
As various Senators attempted today to expose inconsistencies in other aspects of the AGAG's prior testimony, I kept waiting for someone to specifically refer to the slippery warrantless wiretapping testimony highlighted in the Frontline episode.
I especially want to draw everyone's attention to the two minute section I have transcribed below the fold.
In the Frontline episode, Peter Swire, White House Privacy Counsel under Clinton 42, accused Attorney General Gonzales of parsing words very carefully with respect to which program he was talking about at any given time. Sound familiar? Here is a link to the full program on line. My transcript begins approximately 11 minutes into Part Two--The New Era of Pre-Emption/Prevention. I hope that transcribing two minutes of an hour program falls under the limits of fair use, because the transcript provided by PBS is terrible and/or post-edited.
Frontline Correspondent Hedrick Smith: In the intelligence game, blanket eavesdropping is called a drift net, an electronic drift net. But former NSA Director General Michael Hayden said no, that's not what was going on in the president's eavesdropping program.
General Hayden: This isn't a drift net out there where we're soaking up everyone's communications. We're going after very specific communications...
Smith: Now you have Gen. Hayden the former head of the NSA, and the attorney general, saying "This is not a drift net. We're not doing data mining in this program."
Peter Swire (White House Privacy Counsel under Clinton 42): What they've said repeatedly is that "We're not doing the drift net in (making air quotes) this program. (end air quotes) But it might be program number two or program number three.
Smith: This program being what, the president's program?
Swire: Because they were talking about the President's program, and then the other things we're worried about tend to be happening in these other programs they haven't admitted to.
Senate hearing
Senator Lahey: Is there anything any stop you from wiretapping without a warrant somebody inside the United States that you suspect of having Al Qaeda connections?
AGAG: Clearly Senator that is not what is going on here, first of all. The President has authorized a much more narrow program.
Smith: So you're suggesting their denials are a word game not a true denial.
Swire: Yep.
Smith: Have you looked at it closely?
Swire: I looked at the attorney general's testimony very carefully, and every time he gave the big denials, they were attached to the words "this program."
Senate hearing
Sen. Kohl: Al Qaeda to Al Qaeda within the country? You're saying we do not get involved in those calls? Now...
AGAG: Not under the program on which I'm testifying, that's right.
Sen Kohl: ... it seems to me you're saying that Al Qaeda to Al Qaeda within the country is beyond the bounds?
AGAG: Sir it is beyond the bound of the program which I am testifying about today.
Sen. Feinstein: Has the president ever invoked this authority with respect to any activity other than NSA surveillance?
[five second pause]
AGAG (looking nonplussed): Again, uh, I'm not sure how to answer that question. The president has, has uh, exercised his authority to authorize this very targeted uh, surveillance uh, of international communications of the enemy. So, I'm sorry, your question is...?
Feinstein: Has the President ever invoked this authority with respect to any activity other than the program we're discussing, the NSA surveillance program.
AGAG: Senator I, I am not comfortable going down the road of saying yes or no as to what the president has or has not authorized.
Swire: He's a former judge. He's a smart lawyer. The attorney general was speaking very carefully. But I think there could be lots of room after you read his testimony for other programs to be doing really unprecedented things.
Some of today's questions were very pointed on the issue of possible future criminal charges, possible contempt citations, and possible appointment of a special prosecutor. When Feingold introduced his questions and talked about his censure resolution, it sounded less like a censure motion and more like as though someone is compiling a list of impeachable offenses. Under those circumstances, I want someone to pin AGAG down with respect to how the White House and the Justice Department handled the warrantless wiretapping, since any articles of impeachment would most likely include some charge involving abuse of power in circumventing the FISA courts for the warrantless wiretapping program(s).
Hatch and Leahy and Feinstein and Whitehouse all asked general questions about FISA modernization and the unconscionable hospital visit, and my ears perked up, but the topic did not come up in the way I had hoped. Feinstein herself asked the most pointed question in the testimony I transcribed, but clearly wanted to concentrate on another angle today. As Devilstower said in a front page story:
So... it wasn't the horrible invasions of privacy and individual rights that we know about which Gonzales was scrambling to enable. It was some other violation of rights -- one you don't know about -- that the administration was dying to keep.
digby also weighs in:
He keeps implying that when he said that there was "no disagreement" about the program he wasn't talking about the domestic spying program... Senator Whitehouse said that there may be a "kernel of truth" in his testimony, in that what he describes as "other intelligence activities" may have not precisely been part of the program, but points out that he is trying to mislead the committee with a ridiculously convoluted argument. Which he clearly is.
Have there been separate hearings about FISA and the warrantless wiretapping and the domestic spying that I've missed? Today AGAG told Schumer more than once that the president had only authorized one program, but he was not so clear about that in the testimony quoted on Frontline. And what program does he mean when he refers to trying to get Ashcroft to reauthorize a program he [Ashcroft?] had previously approved and known about for over two years? When asked in a pointed way by Whitehouse about "the program at issue," what was meant by "the program at issue" was not at all clear. When asked about "dissent and disagreement" by Schumer, AGAG seemed perfectly trapped on the "only one program" angle, but he wriggled off the hook once again by claiming he clarified his statement with the WaPo reporter. AGAG then slipped in "the president authorized one set of intelligence activities." Well, I took set theory in elementary school: just how many programs exist in that "set"? Schumer knew he was "close to the edge" and landed some good punches but fell just short of connecting the obvious dots for the low information voters. Clearly, Comey did NOT disagree with the "one program" authorized by the president, but with some other (G-d knows how nefarious) intelligence activities that were worth an attempt to accost John Ashcroft in his hospital bed. Then Durbin asked some questions about torture and the moment was lost.
I want another hearing. Feingold and Schumer walked right up to the line of accusing AGAG of perjury, but not over. I want the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold AGAG's feet to the fire quite firmly and publicly on his overtly conflicting testimony about this "set of intelligence activities". We may not get answers, but the questions must be asked and asked and asked again until we get information or an undeniable refusal to answer. This would further demonstrate to the American public that GWB and his advisers are trying to transform the head of the executive branch into a king or a dictator rather than a president who can be held fully accountable to the American people.