Posted on 02/06/2006 12:24:28 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
When the Senate Judiciary Committee begins the most important oversight hearing in recent congressional history this week, Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold will go after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for what appears to be a deliberate deception of the committee and Congress.
This is not a political game. This is not posturing to score ideological or intellectual points.
By every measure, Feingold has the goods on Gonzales.
In advance of the Judiciary Committee hearings on President Bush's authorization of the warrantless wiretapping of the telephones of Americans, Feingold sent a letter to Gonzales asking that the attorney general prepare to explain why, during his confirmation hearings in January 2005, he responded by saying "it's not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes" - a statement that appears to have been a lie.
In his letter, Feingold recalls an exchange during the confirmation hearings in which he specifically asked if Gonzales felt the Bush administration had the authority to authorize warrantless wiretaps in violation of statutory prohibitions. According to the transcript of the exchange, the nominee attempted to avoid answering by dismissing it as "hypothetical."
But Feingold did not let Gonzales dodge the question. The senator pressed him on the matter until Gonzales finally responded, "Senator, this president is not - it's not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes."
Feingold continued the line of questioning, asking, "Finally, will you commit to notify Congress if the president makes this type of decision and not wait two years until a memo is leaked about it?"
Gonzales answered: "I will commit to advise the Congress as soon as I reasonably can, yes, sir."
In his letter to Gonzales, Feingold writes, "In light of recent revelations that the president specifically authorized wiretapping of Americans in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and did so years prior to your confirmation hearing at a time when you were White House counsel, I find this testimony misleading, and deeply troubling. I will expect a full explanation at the hearing."
Gonzales is not an honest man, especially with regard to questions of abuses of power by the president. So it is a given that he will attempt to avoid answering Feingold's questions, and if he is pressed there is every reason to believe that he will attempt once more to deceive Congress.
But it certainly appears that, this time, the attorney general has been caught in his web of lies.
Feingold is right to hold him to account, and the rest of the members of the Judiciary Committee need to back up the senator from Wisconsin. That goes especially for Republicans on the committee, including Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Specter deserves credit for calling the hearing, which had been billed as an examination of "Wartime Executive Power and the NSA's Surveillance Authority" but is really an inquiry into this White House's assaults on the Constitution. But, knowing what he now knows about past lies to the committee, Specter cannot allow this hearing to become another vehicle for executive branch spin and deception.
If Gonzales refuses to cooperate with the committee, he should be sanctioned. If he is proved to have lied to the committee or to have deliberately thwarted its dictates, then appropriate steps should be taken to remove Gonzales from a position of public trust that he has chosen to abuse.
Hopefully Gonzales will tell her, "open your own hearing on that topic if you want - but I'm here to talk about the NSA".
For starters, please understand that the above article is an Editorial by our local "progressive" rag; in other words, it's a FREE commercial for Feingold. *Rolleyes*
"Why are Republican lawmakers were so adamant that Alberto Gonzales testimony be NOT under oath?"
Do you have something that says that Republican legislators didn't or don't want Gonzales under oath for these hearings? I don't see anything about being under oath or not in this Editorial. I don't know the procedures when someone testifies in front of a commiittee. Are they always to take an oath first? I don't know. I testified before a finance committee made up of WI Legislators during Operation Desert Storm, and I wasn't put under oath. (And Feingold was on that committee as he used to be one of our legislators before we unleashed him on the entire United States, for which I apologize.)
Just because Feingold wants it, doesn't mean that the Republicans are completely opposed to it. There are plenty of RINOs to go around at any hearing held by any committee.
More likely IF Feingold is demanding Gonzales be "under oath" it's so the Dems can try to trip Gonzales up, then start in with the "Gonzales Lied," cr@p.
Why would they operate any differently as they did with Judges Roberts and Alito? It's their standard m.o. and they are so blatant in their hatred for the Bush Administration, it's palpable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.