|
Gonzales has until Friday to explain testimony |
|
By Susan Crabtree
|
|
Posted: 08/02/07 12:19 AM [ET] |
|
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is giving Attorney General Alberto Gonzales until the end of the week to resolve apparent discrepancies in his testimony about early divisions within the Justice Department over a wiretapping law.
Leahy dismissed a letter Gonzales sent him Wednesday aimed at explaining any perceived contradictions in his testimony last week. Leahy’s deadline seemed to suggest an escalation in Democrat’s seven-month conflict with the White House over the firings of several U.S. attorneys and revelations discovered during the probe.
During that appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales took issue with former Deputy Attorney General James Comey’s description of internal dissent in 2004 over the legal authority for the National Security Agency’s (NSA) warrantless wiretapping program. Those calls prompted Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) to request a classified briefing to clear up the dispute.
After Gonzales’ testimony last week, frustrated Democrats called for a special prosecutor to investigate a perjury charge, noting that several officials have publicly contradicted the attorney general’s accounts.
In his letter, Gonzales said he was “deeply concerned with suggestions that my testimony was misleading, and am determined to address any such impression.”
Gonzales said efforts to provide answers without disclosing classified information led to the misperceptions that he was not being candid. He said he was only discussing one aspect of the NSA activities that the president has publicly acknowledged, which the administration has called the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
“I recognize that the use of the term ‘Terrorist Surveillance Program’ and my shorthand reference to the ‘program’ publicly ‘described by the President’ may have created confusion, particularly for those who are knowledgeable about the NSA activities authorized in the presidential order described by the DNI, and who may be accustomed to thinking of them or referring to them together as a single NSA ‘program.’”
Leahy called the latest explanation “legalistic” and “not what one should expect from the top law enforcement officer of the United States.”
“It is time for full candor to enforce the law and promote justice, rather than word parsing,” he said.
Leahy separately slammed White House Counsel Fred Fielding’s assertion of executive privilege in response to the Judiciary Committee’s subpoenas to White House political adviser Karl Rove and J. Scott Jennings for documents and testimony related to the investigation.
Fielding claimed executive privilege to prevent Rove from testifying, while allowing Jennings to appear before the panel.
Leahy said Rove has given reasons for the firings that now appear to be “inaccurate, after-the-fact fabrications.”“Why is the White House working so hard to hide Karl Rove’s involvement?” Leahy asked. “Karl Rove, who is now refusing to comply with Senate subpoenas, spoke publicly in speeches about these firings when the scandal first broke, but is suddenly unable to talk it about when he is under oath?” |
