Leahy Asks Justice
Department’s Inspector General
To Investigate Conflicting Testimony
By Attorney General
WASHINGTON (Thursday, August 16) –
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Thursday
asked the Justice Department’s Inspector General to investigate
potentially false or misleading testimony given by Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales during his appearances before various congressional
committees.
In a letter to Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn A.
Fine, Leahy lists several apparently contradictory and disputed
statements the Attorney General has made to congressional committees
– about warrantless wiretapping, the use of National Security
Letters, and the mass firing of U.S. Attorneys -- and asks for an
inquiry of whether the Attorney General engaged in any misconduct or
violated any duties of his office.
“I have given the Attorney General an opportunity to clarify and
revise his testimony, but he has not meaningfully addressed our
significant concerns,” said Leahy, who gave the Attorney General an
opportunity to correct contradictory statements made during a July
24 hearing before the Judiciary Committee.
Below is the text of the letter sent
to the Office of the Inspector General.
It is also available as a PDF.
August 16, 2007
Honorable Glenn A. Fine
Inspector General
The Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Dear Inspector General Fine:
I am writing to ask that you
investigate and evaluate potential misleading, evasive, or dishonest
testimony by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Senate
Judiciary Committee on July 24, 2007, and in previous hearings
before this and other congressional Committees. I have identified
numerous instances in which the Attorney General appears to have
contradicted his own previous testimony or the statements or
testimony of other senior officials, or where he appears to have
engaged in efforts to mislead. I have given him an opportunity to
clarify and revise his testimony, but he has not meaningfully
addressed our significant concerns.
I ask that you review the Attorney
General’s testimony and compare it with other testimony and evidence
to determine whether his testimony was in any instances
intentionally false, misleading, or inappropriate. Consistent with
your jurisdiction, please do not limit your inquiry to whether or
not the Attorney General has committed any criminal violations.
Rather, I ask that you look into whether the Attorney General, in
the course of his testimony, engaged in any misconduct, engaged in
conduct inappropriate for a cabinet officer and the nation’s chief
law enforcement officer, or violated any duty – including the duty
set out in federal regulations for government officials to avoid any
conduct which gives the appearance of a violation of law or of
ethical standard, regardless of whether there is an actual violation
of law.
Potential misleading statements that
you may wish to examine include, but are not limited to the
following instances:
1.
Attorney General Gonzales testified on July 24, 2007,
that the “Gang of Eight,” consisting of members of Congress, told
him that “despite the recommendation of the Deputy Attorney
General,” who as Acting Attorney General had found a warrantless
surveillance program to be without legal basis, the government
should “go forward with these very important intelligence
activities.” According to press accounts, at least three members of
Congress who were present for the described meeting dispute the
testimony that they recommended proceeding with the program over the
Acting Attorney General’s objections.
2.
Attorney General Gonzales testified before the Senate
Judiciary Committee on February 6, 2006, that neither former Deputy
Attorney General James Comey nor other officials had concerns about
the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) that was confirmed by the
President. In a June 5, 2007, press conference, Attorney General
Gonzales stated that a dispute with Mr. Comey concerned this very
program, though he later retracted that statement. At his July 24
hearing, Attorney General Gonzales said that there was no dissent
about the TSP, and that the disagreement concerned “other
intelligence activities.” Numerous officials, including members of
the “Gang of Eight” and FBI Director Robert Mueller have indicated
that the disputes did concern the TSP, and that there was only one
program. Attorney General Gonzales in an August 1, 2007, letter to
me set out a legalistic explanation stating that the disputed
activities and the TSP were separate components of a single program.
3.
Attorney General Gonzales said in April 27, 2005,
testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence with
regard to National Security Letters (NSLs) and other
information-gathering techniques that statutory civil liberties
safeguards had been effective and that “[t]here has not been one
verified case of civil liberties abuse.” Similarly, his responses
to written questions following his April 19, 2007, Senate Judiciary
Committee hearing indicated that he had not learned of problems with
NSLs prior to your March 2007 report on the issue. Documents
obtained in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit indicated that the
Attorney General had in fact received numerous reports in 2005 and
2006 of violations in connection with NSLs and other surveillance
tools. The Attorney General in his July 24 testimony suggested that
his prior testimony and answers were premised on the fact that he
was not aware of any “intentional” violations.
The Washington Post has
reported that at least one intentional violation was reported in the
relevant time period.
4.
In March press appearances, Attorney General Gonzales
said that he had not been involved in deliberations as to which
United States Attorneys should be fired. Documents and testimony
obtained by the Senate Judiciary Committee showed that the Attorney
General attended a November 27, 2006, meeting at which the firings
were approved. In subsequent testimony, Attorney General Gonzales
has taken responsibility for the firings and said that he attended
this meeting, but he has maintained that he does not know who was
responsible for selecting the names of U.S. Attorneys to be fired
and does not remember what was said at the November 27 meeting. He
has at times placed primary responsibility for which U.S. Attorneys
were selected to be fired on his former Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson
and former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, each of whom denies
making the determinations.
5.
In his April 19, 2007, testimony, Attorney General
Gonzales said, “I haven’t talked to witnesses because of the fact
that I haven’t wanted to interfere with this investigation.” In May
23, 2007, testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, former White
House liaison Monica Goodling testified that the Attorney General
had a discussion with her that made her “uncomfortable” in which he
set out his version of events regarding the process of firing U.S.
Attorneys and asked for her reaction. In his July 24 testimony,
Attorney General Gonzales said he had a conversation with Goodling
“to console and reassure an emotionally distraught woman” and to
“reassure her that as far as I knew, no one had done anything
intentionally wrong here.”
These and other examples suggest a
possible pattern of misleading answers and an effort to avoid
disclosing the full truth. I look forward to your review and report
as to the propriety of the Attorney General’s testimony. Thank you
for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
PATRICK
LEAHY
Chairman
# # # # # #
