News Conference With Senator Charles Schumer; Senator Dianne Feinstein; Senator Russell Feingold; And Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: Appointment Of Speci
Statement
News Conference With Senator Charles Schumer; Senator Dianne Feinstein; Senator Russell Feingold; And Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: Appointment Of Special Counsel To Investigate Attorney General Gonzales
Copyright ©2007 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Jack Graeme at jack@fednews.com or call 1-800-211-4020.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Well, this has -- this has been a long and sorry episode for the Department of Justice, and one of the sorriest aspects of this episode has been the cascade of falsehoods that has fallen out of the Department of Justice during the course of this investigation. That cascade of falsehoods reached really its culmination yesterday when the statements were made by the attorney general himself and were made under oath, and were made under oath to Congress.
I can't see, from what I have been told, how those statements could be true. And I think from the response that the attorney general received across the committee yesterday, it's clear that there is wide doubt about his veracity, and this raises very significant issues for the Department of Justice and for the country.
The testimony yesterday occupies an interesting space, if you will. It both illustrates the traditions of the Bush administration towards both prevarication and secrecy, it intersects both classified and unclassified material, and it stands across the bounds of two separate committees -- the Judiciary and the Intelligence Committee.
Given those circumstances, I very strongly believe that the prudent step to take now is to ask a special counsel, who can reach into the classified aspects, who can reach across committee jurisdictions and who can answer a very simple question: Has the attorney general of the United States lied to Congress?
Now I think that's a very important question to answer and I can't speak to the history of congressional testimony. I don't have the length of service of my extremely distinguished colleagues but I have the greatest admiration for Senator Schumer, for Senator Feinstein and for Senator Feingold. And it really impresses me as a new senator to see, from the three of them, the depth of their real horror and concern about what has happened and how this compares to what other administrations have said and done over the years.
So I think this is important work. I think the special counsel is a prudent step, and I'm very honored to be with these three senior senators to support their efforts.
SEN. SCHUMER: Questions.
Q Senator Schumer, is there any indication that any Republicans are onboard at this point?
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, Senator Specter -- you can read his testimony yesterday, and we'll have to see. He's on his way back here, and we do intend to talk to him about this. He isn't here this morning.
But I can tell you this from talking to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. People are incredulous about the way the attorney general conducts himself at the hearings.
Q But does that mean -- I'm sorry to follow up, but have you reached out to any Republicans? Have you tried to bring them onboard? So --
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, again, we -- not -- we -- I called Senator Specter this morning, but he was on his way back from Philadelphia.
Q Are you -- in this request, are you narrowly focusing on lying to Congress? Or it sounded as if you were also talking about Monica Goodling's testimony about crossing the line and the politicization of hiring U.S. attorneys.
(Cross talk.)
SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah, if you read the letter, it outlines what we are looking at. Do we have copies of the letter here? It focuses on perjury. But obviously the independent counsel could look at other things; special counsel could look at other things. But we focus in our letter on perjury and we list three of the most glaring, but there are many more.
Q Has there ever been in any testimony that you're aware of any indication that there was a separate program, that there were separate intelligence activities that were underway that could in any way be misconstrued as a separate program?
SEN. SCHUMER: I asked the attorney general this very question yesterday because he referred specifically -- and I did in my questions to him -- about programs authorized by the president in December, I guess it was, of 2005. I said, "Was there just one?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Only one?" He said, "Yes." So even by his testimony there was just one.
Q (Off mike.)
SEN. SCHUMER: Sure.
SEN. WHITEHOUSE: I don't think either of us can answer that question --
SEN. FEINSTEIN: Well, I --
SEN. WHITEHOUSE: -- because of --
SEN. FEINSTEIN: -- I think we should not answer that question.
Q Could I just --
SEN. FEINSTEIN: And I think what's being said is it is very clear that the briefing given to the Big Eight was on this specific program.
Q Can I just follow up on that? Senator Feingold, you said you've been read into the program, you know what Mr. Gonzales was referring to, and you said his testimony -- (off mike) -- this meeting. You're asking here for a(n) investigation of potential criminal acts. Could you explain is it -- (off mike) -- testimony has been vetted by other lawyers in the committee at the Justice Department. Why do you think there's grounds for a criminal investigation from what you're saying, from what you know about this meeting?
SEN. FEINGOLD: For the reason Senator Feinstein just indicated. Based on what we know and the evidence about what happened in terms of the Gang of Eight and what he said in sworn testimony in the committee, I believe it's perjury.
SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah, this was -- some things he has said --
SEN. FEINGOLD: Not just misleaded, perjury.
SEN. SCHUMER: Some of these things have been misleading, but if you look at our letter, the three specific points, there's no wiggle room there, okay? He said there was no dissent, and then when it's established there was just one program, there is no wiggle room. He said -- well, read the letter. On each of those issues, he said he didn't talk to anybody about the testimony on U.S. attorneys, and Monica Goodling reported that she was embarrassed by her conversation with him about that subject.
The three instances we outline here, there's no wiggle room. Those are not misleading.
SEN. FEINSTEIN: Can I just say --
SEN. SCHUMER: Those are deceiving.
SEN. FEINSTEIN: Can I just add --
SEN. SCHUMER: Those are lying.
SEN. FEINSTEIN: May I add something to that?
His testimony is in direct conflict with Mr. Comey's testimony, so it's very clear the conflict. So the question comes: Who is telling the truth? Both can't be telling the truth.
SEN. SCHUMER: Yes?
Q I have a quick two-parter. One, what if Paul Clement takes a look at your letter and says, "Eh, sorry. I'm not really interested in doing that"?
And part two, what if the attorney general attempts to clarify his remarks during that one-week window that Senator Leahy has set forth?
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, okay, I'll answer, and then you -- I think it's very hard. I mean, we all thought about this at some length after yesterday's -- after yesterday's -- two days ago --
Q Yes.
SEN. SCHUMER: -- Tuesday's testimony. And to me, the facts are so clear and so contradictory -- unless somebody else is lying under oath -- that there's no way he can clarify it other than try to wiggle out of it in a deceptive way, and that's been his MO previously.
And again, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. It's not just one instance. If it were instance, I think every one of us would say give him a time to explain, nobody's perfect, et cetera. It happens over and over and over again. I mean, it is not perjury to say, "I don't know who came up with the list of the U.S. attorneys, the seven U.S. attorneys to be fired." It means, in my judgment, that person shouldn't be attorney general. But the standard we're looking at here is a far higher standard. It's basically lying to Congress.
Q But if Mr. Clement doesn't want to do that, then is Congress talking about bringing back the independent prosecutor law a year and a half --
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, I spoke with some -- Senator Leahy this morning -- and you'll have to talk to him, but it is something he's thinking about. Okay?
Q Senators, in effect the attorney general's talking about a broader program in March '04 that was then -- something was stripped away from it, and that's -- (off mike). I understand you can't talk about it, but if he's trying to kind of parse his words, how would that -- (off mike)?
SEN. FEINSTEIN: Well, we can't comment on that, except to say it is very clear what the purpose of the meeting was. It's clear from the testimony of Senator Rockefeller, Congresswoman Harman, the letter of Negroponte -- very clear.
SEN. SCHUMER: And let me just say one other thing. Again, the question I asked him Tuesday -- because he -- he didn't say "programs"; he said, "the program authorized by the president in December of 2005."
In December of 2005. I said: Is there only one program? Yes.
So maybe there were other programs out there, but we were specific about this program. And that's the question he answered, because he explicitly said it. So, whether there were other programs out there or not, it's clear that there was only one program authorized by the president, and that's what our letter is about.
Q They appear to be the same program, just pared down from March '04, doesn't it?
SEN. SCHUMER: No. Okay, again --
SEN. WHITEHOUSE: That's what the special counsel would sort out in a thoughtful, determined, logical way with access both to classified and unclassified information.
SEN. SCHUMER: There was one program authorized by the president, not one program and a pared-down program, which would make two. There was one.
Q (Off mike) -- disclosed, unauthorized.
SEN. SCHUMER: "Authorized" is the (words that are ?) operative.
Q Excuse me. One broader question. A couple of you mentioned -- (off mike). Have any of you given any thought to where he ranks in the history of attorney generals of the country?
SEN. : Not good.
SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah. He's clearly the worst one since I've been here, far and away. Far and away. And that's not just on grounds of telling the truth, it's on running the department. When he can say "I don't know" about major things in the department such as Senator Feinstein brought out, he does not deserve to be attorney general. And I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to say that there are probably only two people who think he should remain as attorney general -- the president and Attorney General Gonzales.
SEN. FEINSTEIN: See, I think -- wait one second, Chuck. I think things have reached a point of extraordinary sensitivity with respect to his testimony, because he just doesn't tell the truth. And this has become so grating, and virtually anything that happens in the department now, he can't recall it, he didn't know about it. And yet it sees to me when you change major policies in a department, they ought to be signed off and approved by the main leader.
The effect that it's having is what really bothers me. You've had virtually the entire head staff resign. You have a department whose credibility is generally at risk, and deteriorating every day. And these are the big -- for the U.S. attorneys, these are the big prosecutions that our nation makes in major crime and major civil action in this country.
If you can't trust that a United States attorney is doing things on the basis of law and fairness and justice but that might be politically manipulated from Main Justice, that's really a problem.
SEN. SCHUMER: Thank you, everybody.
Source