WASHINGTON: The White House labored to explain Friday how apparently contradictory testimony from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller was not at odds.
Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Gonzales repeatedly and emphatically said President George W. Bush's secret warrantless domestic spying program was not the subject of internal disagreement in 2004 within the Bush administration. Mueller, appearing Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee, said it was.
The apparent contradiction only compounded problems for Gonzales, who is losing support among members of both parties even as he retains Bush's.
The Justice Department chief has been on the political defensive, mostly over doubts about his credibility, since Congress began investigating seven months ago the dismissals of U.S. attorneys. In the process, questions have arisen about Gonzales' involvement in the surveillance program, designed to monitor the international communications of people in the United States with suspected ties to terrorists.
White House press secretary Tony Snow said Gonzales testified accurately that there was no internal dispute over the spying activities the administration launched in 2001 that have since been called the "terrorist surveillance program," or TSP.
"There has never been at any juncture along the line any disagreement about the propriety or legality of that program," he said.
Snow stressed that the program's "legal basis" was not at issue and repeatedly emphasized that his statements only applied to a program as "defined very narrowly and carefully."
Otherwise, he did little to dispel the mystery.
He acknowledged that other matters were a subject of controversy. Since they are classified, however, he said he could not speak about what they were or even whether they were in any way connected to the eavesdropping program. The eavesdropping was conducted without public knowledge until it was disclosed in the media in December 2005 and without any court approval until last January, when the program was put under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
"This is where you get into the fact that there is a possibility that there were broader discussions, and I'm not going to get into any of the context of those," Snow said. "There are many different things that involve the gathering or use of intelligence. Some of those may, in fact, have themselves been subjects of controversy."
The issue arose because former Deputy Attorney General James Comey told Congress that he, Mueller and former Attorney General John Ashcroft were among top Justice Department officials who believed the program was illegal and were prepared to resign over it.
Comey described a dramatic hospital bedside visit in March 2004 by then-White House Counsel Gonzales to Ashcroft that involved the dispute. Mueller also said this week that the hospital room confrontation concerned the terrorist surveillance program. Gonzales said it was not, as did Snow.
"I don't want to stand here as the judge to try to interpret for you what everybody means when they use that term, when they use 'terrorist surveillance program,' because it may have different significations to different people," Snow said. "I've told you the narrow construction that the attorney general has used."
When asked if both Mueller and Gonzales were telling the truth, Snow said, "Yes, I think so. ... I'm sure that both men were up there telling the truth and the whole truth as they understood it."
Gonzales testified previously that the dispute was over "operational capabilities" that remain classified.
During a secure briefing July 19 at the Capitol, Gonzales discussed the reasons behind the bedside visit, lawmakers told reporters immediately afterward. Democratic Rep. Sylvestre Reyes, who as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is privy to classified details, said Gonzales explained the visit "very well in terms of why they had gone there."
But Reyes told The Associated Press on Friday that he found Gonzales' explanation "curious." Asked if he sees the distinction Gonzales made this week between the TSP and other unnamed activities, Reyes responded: "I don't see it."
Earlier Friday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino accused Senate Democrats of waging a campaign of "constant attacks" aimed at bringing down Gonzales.
Showing posts with label gonzales. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gonzales. Show all posts
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
F.B.I. Chief Gives Account at Odds With Gonzales’s
July 27, 2007
By DAVID JOHNSTON and SCOTT SHANE
WASHINGTON, July 26 — The director of the F.B.I. offered testimony Thursday that sharply conflicted with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales’s sworn statements about a 2004 confrontation in which top Justice Department officials threatened to resign over a secret intelligence operation.
The director, Robert S. Mueller III, told the House Judiciary Committee that the confrontation was about the National Security Agency’s counterterrorist eavesdropping program, describing it as “an N.S.A. program that has been much discussed.” His testimony was a serious blow to Mr. Gonzales, who insisted at a Senate hearing on Tuesday that there were no disagreements inside the Bush administration about the program at the time of those discussions or at any other time.
The director’s remarks were especially significant because Mr. Mueller is the Justice Department’s chief law enforcement official. He also played a crucial role in the 2004 dispute over the program, intervening with President Bush to help deal with the threat of mass resignations that grew out of a day of emergency meetings at the White House and at the hospital bedside of John Ashcroft, who was then attorney general.
In a separate development, Senate Democrats, who were unaware of Mr. Mueller’s comments, demanded the appointment of a special counsel to investigate whether Mr. Gonzales committed perjury in his testimony on Tuesday about the intelligence dispute. The Senate Judiciary Committee, meanwhile, issued a subpoena to Karl Rove, the White House senior political adviser, and another presidential aide, J. Scott Jennings, for testimony about the dismissal of federal prosecutors, another issue that has dogged Mr. Gonzales.
White House officials said the Democrats had engaged in political gamesmanship.
“What we are witnessing is an out-of-control Congress which spends time calling for special prosecutors, starting investigations, issuing subpoenas and generally just trying to settle scores,” said Scott M. Stanzel, a White House spokesman. “All the while they fail to pass appropriations bills and important issues like immigration reform, energy and other problems go unanswered.”
The conflict underscored how Mr. Gonzales’s troubles have expanded beyond accusations of improper political influence in the dismissal of United States attorneys to the handling of the eavesdropping program, in which Mr. Gonzales was significantly involved in his previous post as White House counsel.
“I had an understanding that the discussion was on a N.S.A. program,” Mr. Mueller said in answer to a question from Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrat of Texas, in a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.
Asked whether he was referring to the Terrorist Surveillance Program, or T.S.P., he replied, “The discussion was on a national N.S.A. program that has been much discussed, yes.”
Mr. Mueller said he had taken notes of some of his conversations about the issue, and after the hearing the committee asked him to produce them.
An F.B.I. spokesman declined Thursday night to elaborate on Mr. Mueller’s testimony.
In a four-hour appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Mr. Gonzales denied that the dispute arose over the Terrorist Surveillance Program, whose existence was confirmed by President Bush in December 2005 after it had been disclosed by The New York Times. Mr. Gonzales said it centered on “other intelligence activities.”
Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said Thursday night that Mr. Gonzales had testified truthfully, saying “confusion is inevitable when complicated classified activities are discussed in a public forum where the greatest care must be used not to compromise sensitive intelligence operations.”
The spokesman said that when Mr. Gonzales had said there had been no controversy about the eavesdropping operation, he was referring only to the program to intercept international communications that Mr. Bush publicly confirmed.
“The disagreement that occurred in March 2004 concerned the legal basis for intelligence activities that have not been publicly disclosed and that remain highly classified,” Mr. Roehrkasse said.
The four senators seeking an inquiry into Mr. Gonzales’s testimony sent a letter to the Justice Department saying “it is apparent that the attorney general has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements.”
The senators asked for the appointment of a special counsel. While the Justice Department is not obliged to act on their request, the letter reflected the chasm of distrust that has opened between lawmakers on the Judiciary Committee and Mr. Gonzales.
The senators who signed the letter were Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, Dianne Feinstein of California, Charles E. Schumer of New York and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. Ms. Feinstein, Mr. Feingold and Mr. Whitehouse are members of the Intelligence Committee and have been briefed on the intelligence programs at issue.
The senators’ letter was sent to Paul D. Clement, the solicitor general, because Mr. Gonzales is recused from investigations of his own conduct. In addition to his statements to Congress about the intelligence controversy, the letter raised the possibility that Mr. Gonzales had lied about the prosecutor firings.
In what amounted to a warning to the attorney general, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sent Mr. Gonzales the transcript of Tuesday’s hearing, asking him to “mark any changes you wish to make to correct, clarify or supplement your answers so that, consistent with your oath, they are the whole truth.”
Similar requests are routinely sent to witnesses after hearings, but Mr. Leahy’s pointed language underscored his view of the seriousness of the dispute over Mr. Gonzales’s veracity.
Still, neither Mr. Leahy nor Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the committee’s top Republican and a tough critic of Mr. Gonzales, joined in the call for a perjury investigation.
“I don’t think you rush off precipitously and ask for appointment of special counsel to run that kind of an investigation,” Mr. Specter said.
Doubts about Mr. Gonzales’s version of events in March 2004 grew after James B. Comey, the former deputy attorney general, testified in May that he and other Justice Department officials were prepared to resign over legal objections to an intelligence program that appeared to be the N.S.A. program.
Mr. Gonzales’s testimony Tuesday was his first since Mr. Comey’s account drew national attention. He stuck to his account, repeatedly saying that the dispute involved a different intelligence activity.
Mr. Gonzales described an emergency meeting with Congressional leaders at the White House on March 10, 2004, to discuss the dispute. That evening, he and the White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., went to the hospital bedside of Mr. Ashcroft in an unsuccessful effort to get his reauthorization for the secret program.
Lawmakers present at the afternoon meeting have given various accounts, but several have said that only one program, the Terrorist Surveillance Program, was discussed.
In addition, in testimony last year, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was the N.S.A. director when the program started and now heads the Central Intelligence Agency, said the March 2004 meeting involved the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
see also
By DAVID JOHNSTON and SCOTT SHANE
WASHINGTON, July 26 — The director of the F.B.I. offered testimony Thursday that sharply conflicted with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales’s sworn statements about a 2004 confrontation in which top Justice Department officials threatened to resign over a secret intelligence operation.
The director, Robert S. Mueller III, told the House Judiciary Committee that the confrontation was about the National Security Agency’s counterterrorist eavesdropping program, describing it as “an N.S.A. program that has been much discussed.” His testimony was a serious blow to Mr. Gonzales, who insisted at a Senate hearing on Tuesday that there were no disagreements inside the Bush administration about the program at the time of those discussions or at any other time.
The director’s remarks were especially significant because Mr. Mueller is the Justice Department’s chief law enforcement official. He also played a crucial role in the 2004 dispute over the program, intervening with President Bush to help deal with the threat of mass resignations that grew out of a day of emergency meetings at the White House and at the hospital bedside of John Ashcroft, who was then attorney general.
In a separate development, Senate Democrats, who were unaware of Mr. Mueller’s comments, demanded the appointment of a special counsel to investigate whether Mr. Gonzales committed perjury in his testimony on Tuesday about the intelligence dispute. The Senate Judiciary Committee, meanwhile, issued a subpoena to Karl Rove, the White House senior political adviser, and another presidential aide, J. Scott Jennings, for testimony about the dismissal of federal prosecutors, another issue that has dogged Mr. Gonzales.
White House officials said the Democrats had engaged in political gamesmanship.
“What we are witnessing is an out-of-control Congress which spends time calling for special prosecutors, starting investigations, issuing subpoenas and generally just trying to settle scores,” said Scott M. Stanzel, a White House spokesman. “All the while they fail to pass appropriations bills and important issues like immigration reform, energy and other problems go unanswered.”
The conflict underscored how Mr. Gonzales’s troubles have expanded beyond accusations of improper political influence in the dismissal of United States attorneys to the handling of the eavesdropping program, in which Mr. Gonzales was significantly involved in his previous post as White House counsel.
“I had an understanding that the discussion was on a N.S.A. program,” Mr. Mueller said in answer to a question from Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrat of Texas, in a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.
Asked whether he was referring to the Terrorist Surveillance Program, or T.S.P., he replied, “The discussion was on a national N.S.A. program that has been much discussed, yes.”
Mr. Mueller said he had taken notes of some of his conversations about the issue, and after the hearing the committee asked him to produce them.
An F.B.I. spokesman declined Thursday night to elaborate on Mr. Mueller’s testimony.
In a four-hour appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Mr. Gonzales denied that the dispute arose over the Terrorist Surveillance Program, whose existence was confirmed by President Bush in December 2005 after it had been disclosed by The New York Times. Mr. Gonzales said it centered on “other intelligence activities.”
Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said Thursday night that Mr. Gonzales had testified truthfully, saying “confusion is inevitable when complicated classified activities are discussed in a public forum where the greatest care must be used not to compromise sensitive intelligence operations.”
The spokesman said that when Mr. Gonzales had said there had been no controversy about the eavesdropping operation, he was referring only to the program to intercept international communications that Mr. Bush publicly confirmed.
“The disagreement that occurred in March 2004 concerned the legal basis for intelligence activities that have not been publicly disclosed and that remain highly classified,” Mr. Roehrkasse said.
The four senators seeking an inquiry into Mr. Gonzales’s testimony sent a letter to the Justice Department saying “it is apparent that the attorney general has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements.”
The senators asked for the appointment of a special counsel. While the Justice Department is not obliged to act on their request, the letter reflected the chasm of distrust that has opened between lawmakers on the Judiciary Committee and Mr. Gonzales.
The senators who signed the letter were Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, Dianne Feinstein of California, Charles E. Schumer of New York and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. Ms. Feinstein, Mr. Feingold and Mr. Whitehouse are members of the Intelligence Committee and have been briefed on the intelligence programs at issue.
The senators’ letter was sent to Paul D. Clement, the solicitor general, because Mr. Gonzales is recused from investigations of his own conduct. In addition to his statements to Congress about the intelligence controversy, the letter raised the possibility that Mr. Gonzales had lied about the prosecutor firings.
In what amounted to a warning to the attorney general, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sent Mr. Gonzales the transcript of Tuesday’s hearing, asking him to “mark any changes you wish to make to correct, clarify or supplement your answers so that, consistent with your oath, they are the whole truth.”
Similar requests are routinely sent to witnesses after hearings, but Mr. Leahy’s pointed language underscored his view of the seriousness of the dispute over Mr. Gonzales’s veracity.
Still, neither Mr. Leahy nor Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the committee’s top Republican and a tough critic of Mr. Gonzales, joined in the call for a perjury investigation.
“I don’t think you rush off precipitously and ask for appointment of special counsel to run that kind of an investigation,” Mr. Specter said.
Doubts about Mr. Gonzales’s version of events in March 2004 grew after James B. Comey, the former deputy attorney general, testified in May that he and other Justice Department officials were prepared to resign over legal objections to an intelligence program that appeared to be the N.S.A. program.
Mr. Gonzales’s testimony Tuesday was his first since Mr. Comey’s account drew national attention. He stuck to his account, repeatedly saying that the dispute involved a different intelligence activity.
Mr. Gonzales described an emergency meeting with Congressional leaders at the White House on March 10, 2004, to discuss the dispute. That evening, he and the White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., went to the hospital bedside of Mr. Ashcroft in an unsuccessful effort to get his reauthorization for the secret program.
Lawmakers present at the afternoon meeting have given various accounts, but several have said that only one program, the Terrorist Surveillance Program, was discussed.
In addition, in testimony last year, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was the N.S.A. director when the program started and now heads the Central Intelligence Agency, said the March 2004 meeting involved the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
see also
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Democrats Urge Perjury Probe of Gonzales
Thursday July 26, 2007 5:46 PM
By LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Democrats called for a perjury investigation against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Thursday and subpoenaed top presidential aide Karl Rove in a deepening political and legal clash with the Bush administration.
``It has become apparent that the attorney general has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements,'' four Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote in a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement.
They dispatched the letter shortly before Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., announced the subpoena of Rove, the president's top political strategist, in remarks on the Senate floor.
``We have now reached a point where the accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States Attorneys last year,'' said Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In response, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said, ``Every day congressional Democrats prove that they're more interested in headlines than doing the business Americans want them to do. And Americans are now taking notice that this Congress, under Democratic leadership, is failing to tackle important issues,'' he said.
Gonzales is at the center of the U.S. attorney controversy, but the call for a perjury probe involved alleged conflicts between testimony he gave the Judiciary Committee in two appearances, one last year and the other this week. The issue revolves around whether there was internal administration dissent over the president's warrantless wiretapping program.
As for the firing of the prosecutors, e-mails released by the Justice Department show Gonzales' aides conferred with Rove on the matter.
Leahy also said he was issuing a subpoena for J. Scott Jennings, a White House political aide.
``For over four months, I have exhausted every avenue seeking the voluntary cooperation of Karl Rove and J. Scott Jennings, but to no avail,'' the Vermont lawmaker said. ``They and the White House have stonewalled every request. Indeed, the White House is choosing to withhold documents and is instructing witnesses who are former officials to refuse to answer questions and provide relevant information and documents.''
By LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Democrats called for a perjury investigation against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Thursday and subpoenaed top presidential aide Karl Rove in a deepening political and legal clash with the Bush administration.
``It has become apparent that the attorney general has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements,'' four Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote in a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement.
They dispatched the letter shortly before Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., announced the subpoena of Rove, the president's top political strategist, in remarks on the Senate floor.
``We have now reached a point where the accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States Attorneys last year,'' said Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In response, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said, ``Every day congressional Democrats prove that they're more interested in headlines than doing the business Americans want them to do. And Americans are now taking notice that this Congress, under Democratic leadership, is failing to tackle important issues,'' he said.
Gonzales is at the center of the U.S. attorney controversy, but the call for a perjury probe involved alleged conflicts between testimony he gave the Judiciary Committee in two appearances, one last year and the other this week. The issue revolves around whether there was internal administration dissent over the president's warrantless wiretapping program.
As for the firing of the prosecutors, e-mails released by the Justice Department show Gonzales' aides conferred with Rove on the matter.
Leahy also said he was issuing a subpoena for J. Scott Jennings, a White House political aide.
``For over four months, I have exhausted every avenue seeking the voluntary cooperation of Karl Rove and J. Scott Jennings, but to no avail,'' the Vermont lawmaker said. ``They and the White House have stonewalled every request. Indeed, the White House is choosing to withhold documents and is instructing witnesses who are former officials to refuse to answer questions and provide relevant information and documents.''
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Gonzogate
The justice department scandal continues to unfold. The USS Gonzales is going down fast and the rats are jumping ship even faster.
“One of Gonzales' fellow Texans weighed in."This nation deserves better than to have an attorney general who cannot be forthright with Congress and misleads the citizens he has been sworn to protect," said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas. "He has a credibility issue." – AP
You don’t say? Does the nation deserve better than to have a president who cannot be forthright with Congress and misleads the citizens he has sworn to protect?
The facts that are emerging from the firings of the
They have systematically skirted any sort of checks and balances and rule of law since 911. Every controversy that has erupted such as the attorney firings, Plamegate, Hurricane Katrina, WMD’s, and the war itself, has been the result of repeated bungling.
The difference now is that Americans are no longer under the spell of the events of September 11. That event functioned as blinders for the American people. The people’s thirst for vengeance enabled the administration to begin going around the law, and Congress and whoever else happened to be in their way.
They came to think of this free pass from any scrutiny as an inherent right. So skirting the law became operational procedure. And we let them get away with it for far too long.
But from the outset, it was obvious to many that these people were not very bright, not particularly effective and were permeated with an arrogance which ultimately morphed into hubris.
The hubris reared it’s head early on when a forged document made it’s way into the State of the Union Address. The obvious attacks on Joe Wilson by Cheney and his goons soon followed.
The Katrina fiasco exposed the results of cronyism and ineptitude.
The attorney firings further illustrate the way the Bush administration has used it’s privilege as a kind spoils system that rewards loyalty over competence and integrity.
Yet it also reveals the shear stupidity that can only be the result of arrogance. Now people are no longer over looking the obvious, however.
The president belligerently proposed that Rove and other administration officials would be interviewed in secret without transcripts and without being under oath. This bellicosity practically assured that Congress would react negatively to the offer. They have now said they will subpoena people.
Gonzales first made statements that he had no knowledge of the firings when it was provable that he had attended meetings on exactly that topic. Arrogance or stupidity?
The administration released a huge document dump of four thousand pages of emails which under scrutiny showed a two week gap in time, as if no one would catch it.
They got away with it for so long that their modus operandi hasn’t changed. They still feel enabled to dictate any and all terms and that only hastens their unraveling.
This is clearly has to be one of the most feeble attempt at obfuscation an administration has every made. They are so used to not having any oversight they don’t even make an effort to cover their tracks. Now they are caught like deer in headlights stuttering and bumbling like morons.
They are exposed and finally Americans are taking off the blinders.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Adios Gonzales
Alberto Gonzales, the US Attorney-General, appeared to have lost the confidence of both the White House and Republicans tonight amid a growing scandal over the firing of eight government lawyers.
He was in danger of becoming the highest profile casualty of the scandal amid mounting evidence that the eight Republican US attorneys were sacked for failing to toe the Bush Administration line.
Speculation that Mr Gonzales was on the verge of losing his job intensified as it was reported that Fred Fielding, Mr Bush’s White House counsel, was privately discussing the Attorney-General’s future with senior Republicans on Capitol Hill.
After initial denials, it emerged earlier this week that senior White House aides were deeply involved in the dismissals and worked closely with Kyle Sampson, Mr Gonzales’s chief of staff, to draw up what now appears to be a politically-motivated hit list.
Mr Sampson resigned on Monday after admitting that he withheld evidence from Congress over his communications with the White House. Several of the sacked attorneys testified on Capitol Hill last week that before they were dismissed, they were leant on by Republican politicians to pursue claims of Democratic voter fraud.
The “intimidating” calls were made shortly before November’s mid-term elections, when Republicans were desperate to dig up evidence of corruption against Democrats.
The White House aide most involved was Harriet Miers, Mr Bush’s former White House counsel. Karl Rove, Mr Bush’s chief adviser, also discussed the dismissals. One US attorney, in Arkansas, was replaced by a Rove protege.
The Judiciary Committee said it will debate issuing Ms Miers and Mr Rove with subpoenas next week.
On Wednesday, Mr Bush said he was “not happy” about how the dismissals were handled, and gave what a senior Administration official told The Times was a “less than ringing” endorsement of Mr Gonzales.
As the Democratic-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee cleared the way for Mr Gonzales’s top aides to be subpoenaed, a Republican senator became the first in his party to join Democrats and call for the Attorney-General’s resignation.
John Sununu, of New Hampshire, said: “Alberto Gonzales over the past 18 months has lost the confidence of the Congress and the American people, and he’s not in the position to serve the president effectively.” At a private meeting of Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, nobody spoke up to defend Mr Gonzales.
“The US Attorney-General is probably facing the deepest crisis of his particular tenure,” said Senator John Ensign, a Nevada Republican.
Mr Gonzales was Mr Bush’s personal lawyer when he was Governor of Texas, but there is little affection for him among the Republican party at large.
Conservatives have never liked him - they believe his views on abortion are suspect - while moderates blame him for clearing the way for the alleged torture of terror suspects.
Despite their longstanding relationship, it appeared that Mr Bush might be willing to throw Mr Gonzales to the wolves. On Monday it emerged that Mr Bush himself passed on complaints about US attorneys to Mr Gonzales last October. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Mr Bush said: “I never brought up a specific case or gave him specific instructions.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)