Seriously, somebody should ask Tony Snow tomorrow; which one is lying?
He was asked today, and he said Mueller was talking about a different program. I have to admit that if you watch the video of the exchange between Mueller and Lee, there is something very odd going on. For some reason, he won’t come out and say “TSP”, when she asks him and he gets this pained look on his face as he says “an NSA program”. It’s almost like he’s trying to agree with her and disagree with her at the same time.
Obviously one that the “Moral Integrity Blind Trust” board of directors missed when he signed on with the Bush administration…he’s actually able to fight the Kool-Aid, however feebly.
Maybe. I was left very confused, not knowing what the hell Mueller was trying to say. The print article doesn’t do it justice-- you have to see the video clip, with his hesitations and body language. He’s choosing his words awfully carefully for someone who is simply trying to agree. I get the sense that there is more to this. Just my opinion at this point, and I could be wrong.
It could be that he doesn’t want to risk saying something about classified projects in an open forum. I’d think that in his line of work, that would be a fairly common problem.
Yes, it’s like they’re dancing around, trying to avoid mentioning the slave labor camps used to impliment the terrorist surveillance program or something.
Bricker:
(emphasis added) But there’s no underlying crime. 
My thoughts were that he might actually be talking about another program, and that program might have been much worse than the one Lee was asking about. Maybe he was saying: I can’t mention this program first, so please ask me about it.
But it appears that all the news sources are reporting this as a direct contradiction of what AG said, so I’m probably wrong.
On the contrary. The President wasn’t at the meeting. The President isn’t the person that appears to have lied to Congress under oath.
It’s true that the President is supporting Conzales rather than asking for his resignation. But he may simply not believe, as I now do, that Gonzales is lying. He’s perfectly entitled to draw his own conclusions and use his own observations to weigh Gonzales’ credibility. I haven’t looked the AG in the eye and said, “C’mon Al – tell me the truth.” Perhaps if I did, I’d have a different opinion.
From where I sit, there is probable cause to believe that Gonzales committed perjury, and a federal grand jury should consider that question.
That doesn’t mean that the President is obligated to agree with me, and that he’s a liar, conspirator, or fool if he does not.
Absolutely.
True. The president isn’t the one who appears to have committed perjury. However, the AG’s outright refusal to answer questions about what the president directed him to do implies very strongly a role for the president. Gonzales did not claim any privilege, he simply refused to answer the questions. I may have my biases, but I just don’t see any other reasonable conclusion to draw.
That’s certainly possible. Do you really think this is a reasonable conclusion though? What’s your opinion? Most people following this extravaganza have probably formed an opinion on this. Clearly, I have…and maybe I’m wrong. But do you really think the president believes that the AG isn’t lying?
[shrug] There wasn’t in Clinton’s case either. Nevertheless, the lie by itself was considered sufficient grounds for impeachment.
Indeed.
Gonzalez sees himself and his staff as the presidents personal lawyers. He is not the peoples lawyer. Very fundamental when the checks and balances are so easily melted.
Coming out in support of Gonzales, the National Review opines that he was telling the truth, essentially because Dubya had not yet dubbed the program in its current form as The TSP™. Since the TSP had not existed by that name in the same form at the time in question, the AG was supposedly correct in terming it “other intelligence activities.” He wasn’t speaking of a completely different illegal NSA program. Or so the theory goes.
As the Justice Dept’s spokespeople continue to say that the weasel was truthful in his testimony, I wouldn’t be surprised if this is what he had in mind when he appeared on Wednesday.
National Review Online: Accusations That Gonzales Lied To Congress Are Without Merit
I also note that NR (damn, why do both the National Review and New Republic have to go by initials?!) also claims that the questioning was deliberately designed to confuse/corral Gonzales into answers that would appear bad - a “have you stopped beating your wife” kind of thing, I guess.
OTOH, if the highest ranking lawyer in the land can’t figure out a way to avoid that from a bunch of Congressmen, mebbe he isn’t quite fit for his position.
Interesting. That might also explain why Mueller seemed to be talking not so much about the TSP, but another program. If it was a predecessor program he might still be bound by its classified status and not be free to discuss it openly.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The Republicans don’t seem inclined to vote on contempt of Congress yet, so maybe they are holding that as a trump card to get Bush to fire AG. I’m sure Bush just wants to try and ride this out for 18 more months…
NPR today reported an Admin spokeswoman insisted Gonzalez did not lie, but she can’t elaborate without breaching national security.
If it was an earlier, more controversial program, then a few Congresscritters on the House Intelligence Committee probably know about it. I wonder if the ranking members of the Judiciary Committee would have been briefed…?
Well, then she or another admin official can testify before the committee in closed session, under oath, with note-taking allowed, and explain exactly what it is that Gonzales and Mueller meant. If they refuse to take that reasonable step, we can all rest assured that they’re just bullshitting us, again.