In Light of Bush Surveillance Program Revelation, Did Gonzales Perjure Himself During Confirmation Hearings?
Published December 19, 2005
According to President Bush's radio address Saturday, as White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales personally approved Bush's program for warrantless domestic wiretaps.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires a warrant or court order to conduct electronic surveillance.
During his confirmation hearings for Attorney General in January 2005, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) asked Gonzales about this precise issue.
In his answer, Gonzales contradicts himself, first saying it would depend on "the national interest that the president may have to consider," then firmly saying the "president is not above the law."
It's possible the first answer may be the basis of conservative spin as Bush's warrantless surveillance program gets discussed in the days and weeks to come.
Here's the transcript from Gonzales' confirmation hearing:
FEINGOLD: I — Judge Gonzales, let me ask a broader question. I'm asking you whether in general the president has the constitutional authority, does he at least in theory have the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law under duly enacted statutes simply because he's commander in chief? Does he — does he have that power?
GONZALES: Senator, I — you — in my judgment, you phrase it sort of a hypothetical situation. I would have to know what — what is the — what is the national interest that the president may have to consider. What I'm saying is, it is impossible to me, based upon the question as you've presented it to me, to answer that question. I can say, is that there is a presumption of constitutionality with respect to any statute passed by Congress. I will take an oath to defend the statutes. And to the extent that there is a decision made to ignore a statute, I consider that a very significant decision, and one that I would personally be involved with, I commit to you on that, and one we will take with a great deal of care and seriousness.
FEINGOLD: Well, that sounds to me like the president still remains above the law.
GONZALES: No, sir.
FEINGOLD: Again, you know, if this is something where — where it — you take a good look at it, you give a presumption that the president ought to follow the law, that — you know, that's — to me, that's not good enough under our system of government.
GONZALES: Senator, if I might respond to that, the president is not above the law. Of course he's not above the law. But he has an obligation, too. He takes an oath as well. And if Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, there is a practice and a tradition recognized by presidents of both parties that he may elect to decide not to enforce that law. Now, I think that that would be ...
FEINGOLD: I recognize that, and I tried to make that distinction, Judge, between electing not to enforce as opposed to affirmatively telling people they can do certain things in contravention of the law.
GONZALES: Senator, this president is not — I — it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.
***
Put aside Bush's defense of his actions, which is a separate debate. Given his role in circumventing FISA, did Gonzales commit perjury during his testimony?
***
This item first appeared at Journalists Against Bush's B.S.
- In Light of Bush Surveillance Program Revelation, Did Gonzales Perjure Himself During Confirmation Hearings?
- Published: December 19, 2005
- Type: News
- Section: Politics
- Writer: David R. Mark
- David R. Mark's BC Writer page
- David R. Mark's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
If Bush broke the law by circumventing FISA, and Gonzales helped him do it, wouldn't Gonzales have know that what he was saying was false?
It doesn't add up if Bush's defense was that he circumvented the court because of the emergency nature. It may be a justification, but it's still an admission of circumventing the court.
Why can't we assume that Gonzales, also feeling justified in his action, nonetheless knew that Bush was circumventing the FISA court?





This is just like th 'bush lied' crapola the left is constantly spouting. An opinion, even a legal one, is not a lie or perjury just because you disagree with it or don't like the person stating it. It's also not a lie or perjury if you believe what you are saying, even if it turns out to be wrong.