Part 3 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Ranking member Senator Arlen Specter's opening statement. 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:
SPECTER: Let me move quickly through a series of questions -- there's a lot to cover -- starting with the issue that Mr. Comey raises.
You said, quote, "There has not been any serious disagreement about the program."
Mr. Comey's testimony was that Mr. Gonzales began to discuss why they were there, to seek approval, and he then says, quote, "I was very upset. I was angry. I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man."
SPECTER: First of all, Mr. Attorney General, what credibility is left for you when you say there's no disagreement and you're 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 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...
(CROSSTALK)
SPECTER: No, I want to move to the point about how can you get approval from Ashcroft for anything when he's under sedation and incapacitated -- for anything.
GONZALES: May I continue the story, Senator?
SPECTER: No, I want you to answer my question.
GONZALES: Senator, obviously there was concern about General Ashcroft's condition.
GONZALES: And we would not have sought nor did we intend to get any approval from General Ashcroft if in fact he wasn't fully competent to make that decision.
But General -- there are no rules governing whether or not General Ashcroft can decide, "I'm feeling well enough to make this decision."
SPECTER: But, Attorney General Gonzales, he had already given up his authority as attorney general.
(CROSSTALK)
SPECTER: ... was no longer attorney general.
GONZALES: And he could always reclaim that.
There are no rules...
SPECTER: While he's in the hospital under sedation?
(LAUGHTER)
GONZALES: Again, we didn't know -- we knew, of course, that he was ill, that he'd had surgery...
SPECTER: Not making any progress here. Let me go to another topic.
(LAUGHTER)
Attorney General, I wouldn't -- and I'd like to have a lot of time, but I've got three minutes and 43 seconds left, and seven topics to cover with you.
Mr. Attorney General, do you think constitutional government in the United States can survive if the president has the unilateral authority to reject congressional inquiries on grounds of executive privilege and the president then acts to bar the Congress from getting a judicial determination as to whether that executive privilege is properly invoked?
GONZALES: Senator, you're asking me a question that is related to an ongoing controversy which I am recused -- I will say the president's tried very hard...
SPECTER: Oh, no, no. I'm not asking you a question about something you're recused. I'm asking you a question about constitutional law.
GONZALES: You're asking me a question that's related to an ongoing controversy.
SPECTER: I'm asking you whether you can have a constitutional government with the Congress exercising its constitutional authority for oversight if when the president claims executive privilege, the president then forecloses the Congress from getting a judicial determination of it. That's a constitutional law question.
GONZALES: Senator, both the Congress and the president have constitutional authorities. Sometimes they clash. In most cases, accommodations are reached. In very rare instances, they sometimes litigate it in the courts.
SPECTER: Would you focus on my question for just a minute, please?
GONZALES: Senator, I'm not going to answer this question, because it does relate to an ongoing controversy in which I am recused.
(BOOING)
LEAHY: I would note, please, we'll have decorum in here.
Senator Specter has a right to ask all the questions he has. The attorney general has a right to be heard. I have indicated to Senator Specter especially that I'm taking some of his time in saying this, so he has extra time.
But, please, let us continue without comments.
SPECTER: I'm not going to pursue that question, Mr. Attorney General, because I see it's hopeless. It's got nothing to do with your recusal.
You're the attorney general, and you're also a lawyer. And we're dealing with a very fundamental controversy, where the president is exerting executive authority under executive privilege and the Congress is exerting constitutional authority for oversight. And we're trying to take it to court.
The court decides when that conflict exists. It's got nothing to do with, necessarily, the U.S. attorneys who were asked to resign.
Let me move ahead to another subject, see if I get an answer here.
You have a conflict of interest on the matter involving the resignations of the U.S. attorneys.
GONZALES: Yes. I'm recused for that.
SPECTER: Does the president have a conflict of interest in deciding whether or not to allow a contempt citation to go forward to a former White House counsel, Harriet Miers?
GONZALES: Senator, I am not going to answer that question. Again, you're talking about -- asking me questions about a matter in which I am recused. I'm not going to answer that question.
SPECTER: Well, let's see if somehow, somewhere, we can find a question you'll answer.
(LAUGHTER)
How about the death penalty case? I wrote you about this.
Had a man who was convicted of murder. The victim's body was never recovered. There was no forensic evidence directly linking the defendant to the victim's death. The U.S. attorney, a man named Paul Charlton, contacted your office and said, "I don't think this is a proper case for the death penalty."
SPECTER: Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty had a conversation with Mr. Charlton and had a conversation with you. And then McNulty's chief of staff, Mike Ellston, called Charlton. And this is Charlton's testimony: "Ellston indicated that McNulty had spoken to the attorney general and that McNulty wanted me to be aware of two things; first, that McNulty had spent a significant amount of time on this issue with the attorney general, perhaps as much as five or 10 minutes."
Is that accurate, factually? Will you answer a question as to a fact, as to whether you talked to McNulty about this case for as much as five or 10 minutes?
GONZALES: I have no specific recollection as to this particular case.
But I can tell you, we have a very detailed process, where hours are spent by lawyers, including the U.S. attorney, our capital case review unit, who then make recommendations to the deputy attorney general...
SPECTER: I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in an answer to my question. If you don't know, if you don't remember...
GONZALES: I don't -- I don't...
SPECTER: Wait a minute. I'm not finished asking you a question.
If you don't know or you don't remember what happened when you stood on a decision to have a man executed -- that's what you're saying.
GONZALES: I have no specific recollection about the amount of time that I talked with Paul McNulty on this particular issue.
SPECTER: Well, would you disagree with McNulty that it was five to 10 minutes?
GONZALES: I can't agree with that if I don't recall, Senator.
SPECTER: OK, you can't agree with it. I didn't ask you that. I asked you if you disagreed with it.
GONZALES: I can't agree or disagree with it.
SPECTER: Would you say that five to 10 minutes would be a, quote, "significant amount of time" for you to spend on a case involving the death penalty?
GONZALES: It would depend on the circumstances of the case and the recommendations coming up and the facts. Those would all dictate how much time I would spend, personally, on a particular case.
Because we have a very extensive review process within the department, where hours are spent analyzing what is the appropriate course of action for the department...
SPECTER: Well, Mr. Attorney General, I'm not totally unfamiliar with this sort of thing. When I was district attorney of Philadelphia, I had 500 homicides a year. I didn't allow any assistant to ask for the death penalty that I hadn't personally approved. And when I asked for the death penalty, I remembered the case.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Loading...
i greatly respect Arlen Specter. despite his conservative views, he still feels obligated to challenge injustice and bad blood within our system. In short, Arlen Specter is the man.
whitmannn 4 years ago 7
Yes i am also simply sick of seeing gonzales's face!
CNNLIEREPORT 4 years ago 6