Part 25 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Senator Arlen Specter's second round of questions to Alberto Gonzales. 7/24/07
KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he would be asked beforehand. Nothing was a surprise - there was absolutely NO "GOTCHA!"
Transcript of this portion of the hearing:
LEAHY: Report back to Senator Specter and I on that, please.
Senator Specter?
SPECTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Attorney General Gonzales, does Solicitor General Paul Clement now have the unquestioned authority to appoint a special prosecutor since you and the deputy attorney general are recused?
GONZALES: It would be his decision, yes.
SPECTER: Just to be abundantly clear, so that if a request were made to him to appoint special prosecutor to handle the contempt proceedings arising out of this entire matter, it would be his decision?
GONZALES: Yes.
SPECTER: His sole decision?
GONZALES: I would not be involved with it; neither would the deputy attorney general.
SPECTER: Or nobody else would be involved in it, because it's the attorney general's responsibility under the statute?
GONZALES: Ultimately, he would make the decision, yes, sir.
SPECTER: Going back to the question about your credibility on whether there was dissent within the administration as to the terrorist surveillance program, was there any distinction between the terrorist surveillance program in existence on March 10th, when you and the chief of staff went to see Attorney General Ashcroft, contrasted with the terrorist surveillance program which President Bush made public in December of 2005?
GONZALES: Senator, this is a question that I should answer in a classified setting, quite frankly, because now you're asking me to hint or talk -- to hint about our operational activities. And I'd be happy to answer that question, but in a classified setting.
SPECTER: Well, if you won't answer that question, my suggestion to you, Attorney General Gonzales, is that you review this transcript very, very carefully. I do not find your testimony credible, candidly.
When I look at the issue of credibility, it is my judgment that when Mr. Comey was testifying he was talking about the terrorist surveillance program and that inference arises in a number of ways, principally because it was such an important matter that led you and the chief of staff to Ashcroft's hospital room.
When you say that you were going to get Ashcroft's approval on another intelligence matter, it's strains credulity that it would be other than the foremost program to go to his hospital room when he's under sedation. And when you testified here this morning earlier that you were looking to see if Attorney General Ashcroft had sufficient capacity to answer the question as to the -- as to his giving his approval, the man was under sedation.
SPECTER: It just -- all the attendant circumstances make it appear, lead to the inference that we're dealing with the terrorist surveillance program.
So my suggestion to you is that you review your testimony very carefully. The chairman's already said that the committee's going to review your testimony very carefully to see if your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable.
I'd asked you about the case involving United States Attorney Charlton. Are you aware of the fact that with respect to the defendant for whom you're seeking the death penalty, Jose Rios, that the testimony against him was mostly from addicts and drug dealers?
GONZALES: Sitting here today, I have no specific recollection of that. No, sir.
SPECTER: Well...
GONZALES: But again, this is an ongoing case, Senator. And we're going to try to make this case in the courts. And so the more criticism there is of the government's position, the harder it's going to be for the United States government to prevail in court. And I would just simply urge that we try not to criticize the government's position in this case in connection with an ongoing matter.
SPECTER: Well, I disagree with you categorically. I think the government's position ought to be reevaluated.
SPECTER: I do not know whether it's a proper case for the death penalty or not sitting here. But I do know that if you spent only five to 10 minutes on it, you haven't made a reflected, mature, sensible judgment on that. The procedures haven't been followed.
I also know that when the U.S. attorney who handles the case makes a request to the attorney general, he's one man and you're another man. You're dealing with the death penalty for a third man.
But you owe the process more than five to 10 minutes or you ought to be in the position to say to this committee, "It wasn't five to 10 minutes. I don't function that way. I don't make the decision on the death penalty in five to 10 minutes."
But you can't say that because you don't know. So what I would say to you to try to simplify is, go back and take another look at this case.
GONZALES: I will do that.
SPECTER: And I'd also suggest to you that you go back and take a look at all the other cases where you have pressed for the death penalty, especially the ones where your United States attorneys have recommended against it.
Well, time is almost up and we're about to have a vote. We are having a vote, but let me cover one more subject very briefly, and that is the issue on OxyContin.
This is a matter, Attorney General Gonzales, where your department entered into a plea agreement with the Purdue Frederick Company, where scores of people died as a result of OxyContin abuse, and even a greater number became addicted.
And the situation arose where there was an acknowledgment where there was an intense to mislead. Now, that is -- that constitutes malice. Reckless disregard for the life of somebody else would support a common law prosecution for murder in second degree.
Now, the question is: Why does the Department of Justice enter into a plea agreement for a fine?
SPECTER: No jail times. The cost of doing business. The only way to deter white collar crime is if there is a penalty involved, if people go to jail who acknowledge that they deliberately misled to sell a product.
What was the reason for that?
GONZALES: Senator, it was the considered judgment of the prosecutor that it would be -- he was not confident that the evidence would support the intent, the individual intent or malice of the corporate executives, and that he took advantage of the statute passed by Congress to hold these individuals liable without having to show intent. And, as a consequence, they're paying $30 million in fines.
This was a very difficult and very complex case. And so I think that the prosecutors here looked at the evidence...
SPECTER: How many deaths were there?
GONZALES: I can't answer that question.
SPECTER: Would you answer it? Did you review this case?
GONZALES: I did not review this case.
SPECTER: Do you know much money is involved for this corporation to sell this product?
GONZALES: I don't know the answer to that question.
SPECTER: $30 million may be a cheap license.
GONZALES: Well, the $600 million for the company.
SPECTER: $600 million may be a slightly more expensive cheap license.
LEAHY: Are you finished?
SPECTER: Well, I'm not finished, but I'll conclude. Thank you.
Loading...
There should be more people like Specter in the Senate.
wulffwatch 4 years ago 2
Arlen Specter one of my favorite Senators, he owns!
TrentH190 4 years ago 2