Gonzales has till Noon to 'repair' testimony

Well, well, well...
Impeachment resolution hanging over his head...
Conyers probing into the leaked story to the NYTimes favorable to Gonzales...
and Republican Arlen Specter up his ass about resolving the controversy...

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, Arlen Specter (Pa.), emerged from a crucial Monday briefing and gave the Bush administration 18 hours to resolve the controversy over apparent contradictions in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s congressional testimony.

18 hours is up today at Noon Eastern time.  I wait with baited breath.

From the Hill we get a synopsis of Gonzales perpetual lying...

Gonzales took issue last week with former Deputy Attorney General James Comey’s description of internal dissent in 2004 over the legal authority for the National Security Agency’s (NSA) warrantless eavesdropping program. Frustrated Democrats called for a special prosecutor to investigate Gonzales for perjury, noting that several officials have publicly echoed Comey’s account. Those calls prompted Specter to request a classified briefing to clear up the dispute.

Specter aides released a statement late Monday that suggested a bombshell to come on Tuesday afternoon.

"Given the difficulty of discussing classified matters in public, I think it is preferable to have a letter addressing that question [of Gonzales’ veracity] from the administration ... by noon tomorrow, which will be made available to the news media," Specter wrote in the statement. "The administration has committed to producing such a letter."

A bombshell you say?  What pray tell could that bombshell contain?  Testimony from Ashcroft's wife?  E-mails by Comey confirming Gonzales knowledge?  The news media is to get this damning evidence, Noon is less than two hours away.  Is a terror alert in the offing?  Has a terrorist snuck a block of cheese wrapped in wire onto late morning flight?  Enquiring minds want to know.

Tuesday’s letter may hold the key to Gonzales’s future. Specter has so far refrained from joining Democrats’ effort to unseat the attorney general and held off on judging the current flap. News reports over the weekend may have technically supported Gonzales’s claim that the internal wrangling in 2004 occurred over a separate intelligence program, not the NSA program, but Specter offered no clue as to their accuracy.

Gonzales has proven himself to be a serial liar with utter contempt for the constitution and the rule of law.  This deliberate obfuscation points to deliberate attempts to cover up far larger and far more devious crimes.  Crimes that will further enrage a bitter and doubtful public.  The Bush administration is itching for a fight believing it has the will power to stare down the Democratic congress.  But it is not the congress they stare down, it is the American people, and they will never win that fight.

•  I diaried about this

  here.

  Alas, it has since sunk off the list.

  by Glic on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:05:49 AM PDT

  •  good job calling Specter out

    I was being cynical about Specter in my diary. Bush will likely blow Specter off, more huff and puff crap from the GOP.  The rubber is hitting the road, the next step is the impeachment resolution

    by gaspare on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:15:07 AM PDT

    •  Specter was tipping off the White House

      that Leahy has more on them than they realize.

      That is my take.  Specter is trying to held Bush & Gonzales.

      The White House and Gonzales had originally taken the position last week that they were not going to correct the record on Gonzo's testimony most likely because every time Gonzo opens his mouth he gets them into more trouble.  But obviously now there is something more that Specter is concerned will hurt the White House.

      Also please note that Specter has no power to unilaterally enforce an 18 hour deadline on the White House.  Specter is no longer the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee although some days he forgets that fact.  Leahy is still the Chairman and will be at least through the end of 2008.  Leahy has given Gonzales until Thursday to correct the record.

      by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:31:16 AM PDT

      •  I think Leahy has been clear

        that perjury charges will be filed if Gonzo lets his testimony stand as is.

        He suggested AGAG review his testimony very carefully with a lawyer.

        by Glic on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:37:06 AM PDT

        •  The deadline has passed and no letter

          Tony Snow says a letter explaining AGAG's testimony will be forthcoming in "several" hours.

          by Glic on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:26:13 AM PDT

      •  I doubt very much that Specter

        is going to release a "bombshell" this afternoon.  At least not a bombshell proving that Abu G lied -- after all, how can he do that without releasing classified info (assuming he has it).

        He's trying to blackmail persuade the White House to make a deal.

        Unless...is it possible he plans to release Ashcroft's interview transcript?

        by litigatormom on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:37:11 AM PDT

        •  I don't think Specter is going to release a

          bombshell.  I think that there may be a bombshell coming - although I am always suspicious when someone uses that term - especially Specter - the more exaggerated his language the more it seems he disappoints.  If indeed there is a bombshell, Specter just gave the White House the inside track on how to spin it - and as usual did it in such a way as to play the "outsider".  In any case, I think that Leahy knows what the truth is and that Specter is trying to warn the White House.  

          MSNBC is reporting right now on TV that Tony Snow has announced that there will be a letter released today.

          by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:44:27 AM PDT

    •  The creepy thing is Arlen being on AF1

      after Gonzo's testimony last week.

      What up with that?

      by Glic on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:31:26 AM PDT

      •  Helping the White House to get out of this.

        Don't forget that it was Specter's aide (which means that it was Specter) that slipped that provision into the Patriot Act about interim US Attorney appointments not being subject to Senate review.

        Specter has skin in this game and I doubt very much that he wants any of these investigations to reveal his role in these programs and initiatives as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  He was the one who blocked the request to have Gonzales testify under oath on February 6, 2006 and he was very "helpful" to the administration in tamping down congressional dissent during his tenure.

        by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:56:20 AM PDT

    •  I had missed this line

      "Given the difficulty of discussing classified matters in public, I think it is preferable to have a letter addressing that question [of Gonzales’ veracity] from the administration ... by noon tomorrow, which will be made available to the news media," Specter wrote in the statement. "The administration has committed to producing such a letter."

      The White House has "committed" to producing "such a letter"?  A letter addressing Abu G's veracity?  Oh, come on, Arlen, do you expect us to fall for THAT crap.  They will produce a letter that reads like this:

      Alberto Gonzales continues to have the confidence of the President of the United States, and the Vice-President of the United States.  They believe strongly in Mr. Gonzales' integrity and veracity, Administration leaks News reports this weekend concerning the distinction between the intelligence activities that were the subject of Mr. Comey's insubordination concerns in March 2004 and the Terrorist Surveillance Program that was discussed by the President in December 2005 mandate that the Democrats halt their partisan slanders. and will travel around the country to educate the public about the Democrat's partisan attempt to besmirch a valued public enabler servant. Mr. Bush will cut short his planned vacation in Crawford, Texas to travel around the country to catapult the propoganda educate the public about the Democrat's partisan attempt to besmirch a valued public enabler servant.

      by litigatormom on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:43:58 AM PDT

•  I'll bring the duct tape

  Who has the plastic sheeting?

  by shpilk on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:08:16 AM PDT

  •  are you snarking about something I missed, or

    or is the Department of Homeland Security on a Roll?

    by peaceloveandkucinich on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:34:15 AM PDT

•  Please provide

  a link to your quotes.

  by ask on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:09:08 AM PDT

  •  link to quotes

    http://thehill.com/...

    by gaspare on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:18:14 AM PDT

•  WTF! Gonzo should NOT get a "do-over" n/t

  by dolphin777 on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:12:00 AM PDT

  •  It's not a do-over

    It would require him to admit that he's been misleading Congress about the true scope of the NSA domestic surveillance program, something he won't do, because his masters bosses won't let him do it.

    Since he won't do it, not only will his testimony remain false, the willfulness of that falsity will be indisputable.  Well, he WILL dispute it, continuing to say that he "misspoke" or "forgot," but from a legal perspective that kind of defense (which didn't work very well for Scooter Libby in front of a jury, though it was obviously persuasive to the Decider) will be extremely weak.

    by litigatormom on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:32:42 AM PDT

    •  Well, in light of the confirmation by the WH

      that a letter is going to be released by noon today, it is clear that Specter was not pressuring the White House to do anything.  Instead, Specter is giving the White House cover, and himself the credit, for spreading new lies "coming clean."

      by litigatormom on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:53:18 AM PDT

  •  He's not getting a "do over".

    He's going to get into more trouble if he tries to "fix" the problems with his testimony.

    Leahy knows a lot more than we do and I think he would love to see Gonzales try to talk his way out of the lies he has told so far.

    Either Gonzales will lie some more or he will tell the truth - either way it will be a win for Leahy as it is my suspicion that through all of the other testimony Leahy has taken over the course of this investigation he already knows what the truthful answers to the questions he is asking should be.

    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:36:03 AM PDT

•  Another poll option

  Not impeached, not removed...

  by JFinNe on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:13:10 AM PDT

  •  Option #4

    ...is what scares me the most.  We need to get on Harry Reid's back so the Senate does NOT recess fully.

    by Randomfactor on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:16:26 AM PDT

    •  A necessary condition to any "deal"

      to have Gonzo slink off into the sunset is that Bush will NOT attempt to make a recess appointment, but will submit any future nominee to the Senate for confirmation.

      by litigatormom on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:33:41 AM PDT

      •  Congress should have learned by now

        not to make any "deals" with this president.

        If the deal is not formalized in a public manner, and it wouldn't be, what could possible make the president stick to it?

        He seems dead set on provoking the congress at every turn, I don't know why he'd stop now.

        by bawbie on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:37:09 AM PDT

      •  they can't give him the opportunity

        deal or no deal, no recess.

        by Glic on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:38:36 AM PDT

    •  Absolutely

      no recess appointment.

      by Glic on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:38:06 AM PDT

  •  your right

    I can't edit the poll, but point taken a 'deal' may get cut and impechment may never occur

    by gaspare on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:16:34 AM PDT

•  Not Impeached, Not Censured, Not Removed, Not

  prosecuted.

  by Gooserock on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:17:30 AM PDT

•   Was Specter Read Into the Warrantless

  Wiretapping Program yesterday ? I had read that was to happen, and now we hear about this letter. Sounds like Spector and Cheney have cooked up some plan to make this all go away to me. Leahy has given Gonzales till Friday, so it doesn't really matter what Arlen wants anyway.

  by OneCrankyDom on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:19:22 AM PDT

  •  Where did you hear that was going to happen?

    And if he was, was Leahy also?

    by litigatormom on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:34:08 AM PDT

    •  I heard it on CNN one time only and no mention

      of Leahy being read into it also. Seemed like some kind of private meet, and I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere since. I'll look at ThinkProgress, they should have it...

      by OneCrankyDom on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:39:29 AM PDT

    •  From TheHill.com

      The Senate Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, Arlen Specter (Pa.), emerged from a crucial Monday briefing and gave the Bush administration 18 hours to resolve the controversy over apparent contradictions in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s congressional testimony.

      Gonzales took issue last week with former Deputy Attorney General James Comey’s description of internal dissent in 2004 over the legal authority for the National Security Agency’s (NSA) warrantless eavesdropping program. Frustrated Democrats called for a special prosecutor to investigate Gonzales for perjury, noting that several officials have publicly echoed Comey’s account. Those calls prompted Specter to request a classified briefing to clear up the dispute.

      Specter expects the letter clarifying the attorney general’s testimony to be addressed to himself and Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who declined to comment on the matter.
      Specter was equally cagey, telling reporters to wait until Tuesday for any further comment from him.

      by Glic on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:40:58 AM PDT

    •  TPM has it -

      From an AP article on Bush's sudden push to rewrite FISA; posted on TPM:

      Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, received a classified briefing on the terrorism eavesdropping program. Specter refused to say whether the briefing shed light on whether Gonzales lied when he said there had been no significant disagreement on the program within the administration. He said the White House would release a letter Tuesday on the matter.

      by bawbie on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:42:05 AM PDT

      •  How the hell do they justify briefing Specter

        on it and not Leahy?  They're basically saying that they're arming Specter to defend Gonzo without having to tell anyone else about the program, especially the untrustworthy Democratic Chair of the Judiciary Committee.

        Hey, Cheney, go fuck yourself.

        by litigatormom on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:46:20 AM PDT

        •  Exactly right! n/t

          by BehereBenow on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:47:42 AM PDT

        •  I don't know

          but shit like that doesn't surprise me anymore.

          That's what I find so scary about the idea of the recess appointment this month.  You just can't say "they wouldn't do that" anymore.

          by bawbie on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:47:48 AM PDT

          •  No, you can't say that about anything

            As Gonzo said in discussing whether it was reasonable to take an authorization order to the sedated Ashcroft despite the fact that Ashcroft had delegated all authority to Comey: "There are no rules."

            by litigatormom on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:51:55 AM PDT

            •  You must not have heard him

              whine that Ashcroft could take back that authority whenever he wanted...come on, get with the program.

              On a completely shallow note, I hate Gonzo's voice. I hate hearing him speak and the way he pronounces things. He sounds like a weak old woman: "nasha-sakyoortee".

              /pettiness.

              by Glic on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:05:09 AM PDT

              •  Please don't insult weak old women!

                Gonzales is a completely worthless, terrible excuse for a human being. He deserves all the pettiness in the world.

                by maralenenok on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:54:38 AM PDT

    •  not getting much play, but it happen

      And Sen. Arlen Spector, a Pennsylvania Republican and the committee's ranking Republican, attended a national intelligence briefing to determine whether the attorney general and FBI director were talking about different elements of the same program.

      http://www.miamiherald.com/...

      by OneCrankyDom on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:44:32 AM PDT

  •  Heard the same. This letter today

    will be a formal announcement from the Prez explaining that Gonzo wasn't lying - there are two aspects of the same program, Gonzo was referring to one, Mueller and Comey to the other.
    Therefore, STFU all you Democrats.  That's what Bush will say in his letter today..the info is of course related to national security, blah blah blah.  But basically, just STFU.

    by sherlyle on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:41:33 AM PDT

    •  I just don't see how that flies

      that's obviously why the administration leaked about the data mining, but it's like saying: we were talking about the fuel pump as opposed to the spark plugs, therefore we were not talking about the engine.

      It's desperate BS if that's what they're trying to pull.

      by Glic on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:42:56 AM PDT

      •  Absolutely agree, but that's what they're going

        for.  Oh, and they can't tell us because then they'd have to kill us.  

        by sherlyle on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:44:22 AM PDT

        •  they're kinda doing that already

          killing us, that is.

          by Glic on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:46:17 AM PDT

      •  Back to what the definition of " IS " is

        parsing to the extreme is now and has always been in play.

        by OneCrankyDom on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:47:25 AM PDT

      •  Great minds

        I said yesterday that the Administration's position is like saying "Abu G said he didn't put food in his mouth. He never said he didn't eat."

        by litigatormom on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:49:45 AM PDT

      •  Spark plugs, fuel pump

        I've had trouble getting a handle on the whether or not there might be a shred of truth with the claim that there are different programs. Your metaphor really shows what a lie it is. Thank you for clarifying it.

        by Red Bean on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:53:03 AM PDT

      •  But that means he lied when he said

        the Gang of Eight were briefed about the fuel pump.

        I'm sure it's perfectly possible for him to get out of this unscathed, but even with this dissembling, he still lied.

        by maralenenok on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:57:12 AM PDT

        •  oh absolutely

          that's why I say it appears this is desperate BS.

          by Glic on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:58:40 AM PDT

    •  So, basically what Tony Snow said last week

      Fredo wasn't lying, but I can't tell you why he wasn't lying because thats classified.

      by bawbie on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:46:27 AM PDT

      •  What he said was

        "Trust me.  He's not lying.  But I can't tell you why. Trust me on that too. Oh, and by the way?  Fuck you and the horse you rode in on."

        by litigatormom on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:50:31 AM PDT

        •  I thought the "F Y" was obvious

          in his delivery. Smirky, lacking in gravitas, joking.

          Hey, it's only nash-sakyoortee.

          by Glic on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:06:03 AM PDT

•  tick tock

  

  by Glic on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:41:45 AM PDT

  •  I can hear the theme from "Jeopardy"

    playing in the background.

    by litigatormom on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:34:00 AM PDT

•  No way is Specter actually concerned

  about Gonzo's truthfulness.  Whatever it is, you can bet it's an attempt to embarrass Dems and get Gonzo off the hook.  

  by sherlyle on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:43:34 AM PDT

  •  Totally

    Man, I just HATE Arlen Specter.  Over and over again, he pretends to actually care about the rule of law, and then he just bends over and let's the Administration do whatever the frak it wants in the guise of a "reasonable compromise" that actually doesn't involve any compromise whatsoever on the part of the Administration.

    Remember how he wanted to amend FISA to ratify what the White House was doing, so that the White House could "comply" with the law?

    Is he going to run again?  Taking him out of the Senate has to become a serious priority for the Democrats. He does more damage to this country that John "Clinically Certified Moron" Kyl.

    by litigatormom on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:56:10 AM PDT

    •  But he gets to stand in front of his constituents

      and puff and bluster about how he's keeping an eye on all this, yes you people can trust me to safeguard your rights, blahblah, while simultaneously pleasing his masters.  He's a master at this.  So good he continually raises our hopes that he may actually be one of the statesmen we so desperately need.
      He's not.  He's a Bush enabler.  Period.

      by sherlyle on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:03:12 AM PDT

      •  Two words: Clarence Thomas n/t

        by litigatormom on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:04:47 AM PDT

•  He's had enough opportunities to clarify

  his testimony.

  Each time he has been called before Congress, it has been to clear up discrepancies from his past opportunities to tell the truth.

  I suspect that Leahy is just giving Gonzo more rope.

  by Mad Kossack on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:43:52 AM PDT

•  personally

  I don't think he'll be either impeached or removed. They need a 2/3 vote for impeachment and 2/3 vote for conviction, and I just don't think the votes are there.

  I'd be happy to be proven wrong tho.

  by CaptUnderpants on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:45:48 AM PDT

  •  Majority vote for impeachment, I think

    But you are right about conviction.  And Specter's stunt is designed to prevent more Republican defections, and bring those Goopers who have already criticized Gonzo back into the fold.

    The only good news about this -- perhaps -- is that it will eliminate Gonzo as the bright shiny object, and focus Congress attention back on the really critical question: "How exactly IS the Administration depriving us of our civil liberties?"

    by litigatormom on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:58:22 AM PDT

  •  50 + % vote in the House

    is all that is needed to impeach, although you are correct that 66.7% + is needed for convicting in the Senate. Impeachment is political doable even if the Republicans all vote against it, and Repubs will be under a lot of political pressure to abandon Gonzales to his fate.

    Since an impeachment inquiry trumps almost all claims of executive privilege, a lot of currently stonewalled evidence will come out which will be damaging not only to Gonzales but to Bush and Cheney as well.

    Let's go for it!

    by MyBrainWorks on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:09:00 AM PDT

    •  hmmm...

      you said:

      Since an impeachment inquiry trumps almost all claims of executive privilege, a lot of currently stonewalled evidence will come out which will be damaging not only to Gonzales but to Bush and Cheney as well.

      It still only comes out if they give it, upon subpoena or court-order.  I haven't seen a subpoena or court order they haven't ignored yet.

      I still think they would stonewall, which would lead to a race against the clock with the administration trying to run out the clock without turning over anything.

      by bawbie on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:11:29 AM PDT

      •  Won't be easy

        Of course you're right, they will still try to stonewall, but impeachment will weaken them significantly.

        by MyBrainWorks on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:13:01 AM PDT

    •  in that case

      I think we probably could get the impeachment (although not the conviction).

      by CaptUnderpants on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:31:06 AM PDT

      •  Impeachment very likely indeed

        and conviction is not impossible. It would be difficult, but in the case of Gonzales at least, doable. New evidence and the publicity of the investigation and trial would erode his support even beyond its current weak state. Would some hard-core Repub loyalists vote agains conviction no matter what the evidence? Almost certainly, But getting 17 principled or politically vulnerable Repubs is not impossible. It could only happen though, after we start the process.

        by MyBrainWorks on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:53:08 AM PDT

•  #4

  Not that temporary. A recess appointee would get to serve until the end of this Congress, which would more or less coincide with the scheduled end of the Bush regime in January 2009.

  by Red Bean on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:46:44 AM PDT

  •  I understood Harry Reid will have

    Senators nearby come in to prevent recess appointments, can someone explain how this is done exactly?

    by kimoconnor on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 09:22:53 AM PDT

    •  The idea is

      to get Senators who live near DC to meet every 10 days and formally open a session of Congress to keep the recesses short. Unfortunately, there is no law saying how short a recess has to be to prevent a recess appointment, 10 days is only traditional/customary.

      I can't confirm this with a link, but I've heard Bush made one appointment during a recess of 3 days (long weekend). This seems to have aroused only small opposition, but an important appointment would be more controversial.

      by MyBrainWorks on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:07:12 AM PDT

      •  Thank you

        This is a dangerous game, it seems Bush has no worries about doing what is customary....hell he has no worries about doing what is legal!

        by kimoconnor on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:55:14 AM PDT

•  It's 'bated'

  Bated breath. Same root as abated. 'Baited breath' always makes me think the person has been eating angleworms.

  by mswaine on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:05:15 AM PDT

•  How will the MSM spin this?

  They've been fairly skeptical..will they accept the spin job and criticize Dems for their partisan sniping, or will they say "Trust us" coming from the WH just isn't good enough?
  Whichever way they jump, that's how this whole thing will play out.  

  by sherlyle on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:05:55 AM PDT

•  And another thing..

  If this letter gets accepted, and the whole thing goes away for Gonzo, does that mean we have given WH permission to answer questions raised by subpoenas in the same manner?
  The flimsiest excuse will be accepted, and all they have to do is send a letter?  

  by sherlyle on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:14:28 AM PDT

•  I don't see the option for "stays on."

  Because I'd put a tenner on that one.

  Oh, Arlen. You don't trust Gonzales but you trust that the administration that trusts Gonzales has a really good reason why it trusts Gonzales and will not lie (like Gonzales) in a letter. But you still don't trust Gonzales. You make my head hurt.

  by maralenenok on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:44:56 AM PDT

•  It's 1:00 - so ?

  No news is not good news.

  by Tracker on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 09:54:07 AM PDT