Part 30 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Second part of Senator Schumer '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!" During this portion of the hearing, Schumer asks Gonzales, "Who sent you (to Ashcroft's hospital bed?" and Gonzales launches into an obviously prepared script that doesn't answer the question.
Transcript of this part of the questioning:
SCHUMER: The facts have come out that all visitors were barred by her. OK.
Next, do you have documents in your possession reflecting the transfer of power or authority from Ashcroft to Comey?
GONZALES: I do have them now, yes.
SCHUMER: You didn't have them then?
GONZALES: I don't recall having -- personally having them. There is some question, as I understand it, about whether they came to the White House and who at the White House had them. But, again, I'll just...
SCHUMER: Counsel -- wouldn't the counsel have gotten such documents?
GONZALES: I would think so, yes.
SCHUMER: So you probably had them. Is that -- would that be fair?
GONZALES: I would say that they may have come in. I have no recollection of that, Senator.
SCHUMER: Could you go through your records and produce for this committee any documents in your possession at that time or in your offices -- the Office of Council's possession at the time?
GONZALES: I'd be happy to take that back and see if that can be done.
SCHUMER: Why couldn't it be done?
GONZALES: Well, I don't know, Senator. If we can do it, we'll produce it.
SCHUMER: OK. Could you give them to our committee by Friday?
GONZALES: We'll certainly do our best.
SCHUMER: Thank you. Did you discuss classified information in front of Mrs. Ashcroft, who did not have a security clearance?
GONZALES: It's my recollection that the answer to that question is no. General Ashcroft did virtually all of the talking, and he did all the talking with respect to the legal issues. I can't, sitting here today -- I don't believe that he disclosed classified information in the hospital room.
SCHUMER: OK. Let me ask you this. Who sent you to the hospital?
GONZALES: Senator, what I can say is we'd had a very important meeting at the White House over one of the most...
SCHUMER: I didn't ask that. I didn't ask...
GONZALES: Well...
SCHUMER: You've discussed the meeting...
GONZALES: I'm answering your question, Senator...
SCHUMER: Who sent you?
GONZALES: ... if I could.
SCHUMER: Did anyone tell you to go?
GONZALES: It was one of the most important programs for the United States. It was important -- had been authorized by the president.
I'll just say that the chief of staff to the president of the United States and the counsel to the president of the United States went to the hospital on behalf of the president of the United States.
SCHUMER: Did the president ask you to go?
GONZALES: We were there on behalf of the president of the United States.
SCHUMER: I didn't ask you that.
GONZALES: I understand...
SCHUMER: Did the president ask you to go?
GONZALES: Senator, we were there on behalf of the president of the United States.
SCHUMER: Why can't you answer that question?
GONZALES: That's the answer that I can give you, Senator.
SCHUMER: Well, can you explain to me why you can't answer it directly?
GONZALES: Senator, again, we were there on an important program for this president, on behalf of the president of the United States.
SCHUMER: Did you talk to the president about it beforehand?
GONZALES: Senator, obviously, there were a lot of discussions that happened during that period of time. This involved one of the president's premier programs...
SCHUMER: I understand. But, sir, you're before this committee. You are before this committee. You're supposed to answer questions. You've not claimed any privilege. I don't think there is any here. And I asked you a question. And you refuse to answer it.
GONZALES: Senator, if...
SCHUMER: Why?
GONZALES: I'll go back -- if I can answer the question, I will answer the question...
SCHUMER: I know. But could you tell me why you can't answer this question?
GONZALES: Senator, because, again, this relates to activities that existed when I was in the White House. And because of that, with respect to your specific questions, I will go back and see whether or not I can answer the question.
SCHUMER: Did the vice president send you?
GONZALES: Senator, we were there on behalf of the president.
SCHUMER: Did you talk to the vice president about it?
GONZALES: We were there on behalf of the president.
SCHUMER: You will not answer that question as well. Is that correct?
GONZALES: We were there on behalf of -- if I can -- I'd be happy to take back your question. If we can respond to it, we will.
SCHUMER: OK. Now, you kept referring to this meeting of the gang of eight. Did any member of the gang of eight direct you to go to Ashcroft's hospital bed?
GONZALES: Oh, no. In fact...
SCHUMER: Was there any discussion...
GONZALES: No. I'm not sure that they knew that we went.
SCHUMER: So they had no knowledge you were doing that?
GONZALES: I'll put it this way. I did not tell them that we are going to do it.
SCHUMER: OK. Did every member of the gang of eight know that Comey, Ashcroft, Mueller and others were prepared to resign over the program?
GONZALES: Well, first of all, I'm not aware that that's true, that the statement is true. But in terms of -- I'm not sure that we got into discussions about any resignations. The discussion centered on the fact that Mr. Comey was unwilling to authorize the continuation of this very important intelligence activity, and that we were there to seek help from the Congress for legislation.
SCHUMER: Understood. But you didn't -- did they know that there was dissent within the administration on this, within the Justice Department?
GONZALES: I was pretty clear, quite frankly, in making sure that they understood that the deputy attorney general did not believe that the president had the authority to authorize these activities.
I tried to paint -- I didn't want to be accused of, in any way, not presenting, in the most forceful way that I could, the disagreement that existed. And so I -- yes, I think that they understood that there was serious dissent.
SCHUMER: OK. But you testified to us that you didn't believe there was serious dissent on the program that the president authorized. And now you're saying they knew of the dissent and you didn't?
GONZALES: The dissent related to other intelligence activities. The dissent was not about the terrorist surveillance program that the president confirmed and...
SCHUMER: So if we asked eight who were there, they would say that's the case, either -- would they say that?
Would they say it was not about the TSP, that it was about other issues?
I thought you just testified that you brought them to talk about that issue because you needed legislation. Now you're saying...
GONZALES: I can't tell you what they would say if you asked them a question, Senator. I'm just telling what I recall.
SCHUMER: Wait, sir. We're going back to the -- we're back in the same conundrum as always, where it just doesn't seem that you're leveling here with the American people or the committee.
GONZALES: I don't see how it could be more clear.
SCHUMER: You said, sir -- sir, you said that they knew that there was dissent. But when you testified before us, you said there has not been any serious disagreement. And it's about the same program. It's about the same exact program. You said the president authorized only one before.
And the discussion -- you see, it defies credulity to believe that the discussion with Attorney General Ashcroft or with this group of eight, which we can check on -- and I hope we will, Mr. Chairman; that will be yours and Senator Specter's prerogative -- was about nothing other than the TSP.
And if it was about the TSP, you're dissembling to this committee. Now was it about the TSP or not, the discussion on the eighth?
GONZALES: The disagreement on the 10th was about other intelligence activities.
SCHUMER: Not about the TSP, yes or no?
GONZALES: The disagreement and the reason we had to go to the hospital had to do with other intelligence activities.
SCHUMER: Not the TSP?
Come on. If you say it's about "other," that implies not. Now say it or not.
(LAUGHTER)
GONZALES: It was not. It was about other intelligence activities.
SCHUMER: Was it about the TSP? Yes or no, please?
That's vital to whether you're telling the truth to this committee.
GONZALES: It was about other intelligence activities.
(PROTESTER SHOUTS OFF-MIKE)
SCHUMER: OK. All right, let me ask you this. Did they gang of eight have access to the Office of Legal Counsel opinions expressing concerns about the program's legality?
Did they know that the Justice Department office in charge of saying whether this program was legal or not had said it's not?
GONZALES: In essence, what they understood was that the Department of Justice, Mr. Comey, was unwilling to approve the continuation...
SCHUMER: I know that.
GONZALES: ... of these intelligence activities.
SCHUMER: Did they have any access -- you're having a discussion here, you're asking them -- you're asking them to approve new legislation. Don't you think it would be extremely logical and fair to tell them that the Office of Legal Counsel disagreed?
GONZALES: I think it would be equally logical for them to assume that if the deputy attorney general took that position, that perhaps the Office of Legal Counsel might also have that same position.
SCHUMER: All right. Just one -- I know chairman wants to wrap up, and I appreciate that. Just one other quick question here.
Senator Leahy -- Chairman Leahy and Senator Specter and I have discussed some idea -- they would have to go ahead with this -- of having the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, come testify before the committee.
Now, just last week, on July 17th, the department made available to the committee Texas U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, who's in exact same position as Fitzgerald is. In other words, Sutton testified at length about the case about Border Agents Ramos and Compean. In that case, as in this, the trial is over. In that case, as is this, their appeals are pending. Mr. Sutton testified about issues that will not affect the appeal.
So my question to you is, should this committee -- and that decision is not mine -- but should this committee, and given the public interest in this case, wish to bring Patrick Fitzgerald before us, would you have any objection?
GONZALES: Senator, you know, I'm recused from Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation and so I'm not sure that I'd be in a position to say one way or the other.
SCHUMER: Who would make that decision?
GONZALES: It would be the deputy attorney general.
SCHUMER: So the acting deputy attorney general would make that decision?
GONZALES: No, the deputy attorney general. Paul McNulty...
SCHUMER: Paul McNulty. OK. But you are not going to opine whether that would be OK?
GONZALES: I don't believe so. Again, I was recused from that investigation.
SCHUMER: OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
also, why can't he answer a GOD DAMNED QUESTION