Gonzales Denies Pressuring Ashcroft
    By Dan Eggen and William Branigin
    The Washington Post

    Tuesday 24 July 2007

    Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales today defended a dramatic nighttime visit to the hospital bed of his predecessor, John D. Ashcroft, in March 2004, saying that he had no intention of taking advantage of Ashcroft while he was recovering from surgery.

    Gonzales said his visit to Ashcroft's bedside, accompanied by Andrew H. Card Jr., then the White House chief of staff, came after an emergency meeting with Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate about "a very important intelligence activity," which was about to expire because Ashcroft's temporary replacement had refused to renew it.

    "We never had any intent to ask anything of him if we did not feel he was competent," Gonzales testified at an oversight hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying that Ashcroft was "lucid" and did most of the talking during the meeting.

    Gonzales's testimony provides more details about a controversial dispute that spring between Gonzales, who was White House counsel at the time, and then-deputy attorney general James B. Comey, who was running the Justice Department during Ashcroft's illness. In a remarkable appearance before the Judiciary panel in May, Comey testified that he was angered by the episode because he believed Gonzales and Card sought "to take advantage of a very sick man."

    The dispute centered on an unidentified surveillance activity which Comey and other senior Justice officials had determined they could not reauthorize after a review of its legality. White House officials disagreed and moved aggressively to get the program renewed.

    The Bush administration has refused to say which classified program was at issue in the dispute. Some sources have said the dispute was related to a controversial warrantless surveillance program operated by the National Security Agency, the existence of which was later confirmed by President Bush.

    However, Gonzales reiterated today that the dispute was not about the program that Bush described. Gonzales also said he misspoke during a news conference in June, when he said it was the same program.

    Gonzales said an emergency meeting was held on the afternoon of March 10, 2004, with the so-called "Gang of Eight," which consists of the bipartisan leadership of the House, Senate and both intelligence committees. Gonzales said congressional leaders agreed that the intelligence activity should continue, and he and Card traveled to George Washington University Hospital that evening to visit Ashcroft, who was recovering from gall bladder surgery.

    "Mr. Comey had informed us that he had not approved continuation of a very important intelligence activity, despite the fact that the department had approved that activity over the course of two years," Gonzales said. "The consensus in the room was that we should continue the activities, at least for now. . . . We felt it was important that he knew of the opinion of the leadership." Gonzales acknowledged that, as Comey testified, Ashcroft declined to overrule Comey.

    Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), who at the time was ranking member of the Senate Intelligence committee, said there was no consensus among the "Gang of 8" about the legality of the program, nor were the congressional leaders ever expected to give their approval to the program.

    "He once again is making something up to protect himself," Rockefeller, now committee chairman, said of Gonzales.

    Rockefeller added that he's unsure whether Gonzales attended meetings about the intelligence program. "I don't remember him being in any of these meetings," he said.

    Earlier, in his opening remarks to the committee, Gonzales called on Congress to modernize the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but did not refer to the controversies at issue in the oversight hearing.

    He disputed charges that morale in the Justice Department has plummeted under his leadership, saying that morale can best be measured by "output." The department's output in the last six months has been "outstanding," he asserted.

    "I've decided to stay and fix the problems," he said in response to a question.

    But Gonzales came under withering criticism from the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), and from its top Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.)

    "The attorney general has lost the confidence of the Congress and the American people," Leahy said. He said the administration "has squandered our trust" and told Gonzales bluntly, "I don't trust you."

    Specter said there was "evidence of low morale" at the Justice Department and blasted what he described as Gonzales's lack of "personal credibility." He called the department "dysfunctional." Specter raised the prospect of calling for a special prosecutor to press a potential contempt-of-Congress citation over the White House's refusal to provide certain documents and sworn testimony regarding the firing of nine federal prosecutors last year. He denounced the Bush administration's stand that it would prohibit the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia from pursuing a contempt citation.

    "Now if that forecloses a determination of whether executive privilege has been properly imposed, then the president in that manner can stymie congressional oversight by simply saying there is executive privilege," Specter said. That would spell the end of congressional oversight and take the controversy "to a really incredible level," he said.

    "Now we've been exploring some alternatives," Specter said, noting that "the attorney general has the authority to appoint a special prosecutor." He told Gonzales, "You're recused, but somebody else could do it."

    Specter added, "We also have the alternative of convening the Senate and having a contempt citation and trying it in the Senate."

    Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee announced that it will press toward a constitutional showdown with the Bush administration over the U.S. attorney firings scandal.

    Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), chairman of the committee, said it will vote on Wednesday on contempt citations for the White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers. Both refused congressional demands for information on the dismissals after President Bush invoked executive privilege.

    The move puts House Democrats on a legal collision course with the White House, which said last week that it will not allow the Justice Department to prosecute executive branch officials for being in contempt of Congress.

    Gonzales's promise to remain in officecomes as many Justice Department employees say they are dispirited and have little confidence in their politically wounded leader.

    Most members of Gonzales's senior staff have resigned or are on the way out. Several outside candidates turned down chances to be considered for the job of his deputy, and more than a half-dozen other top positions remain filled by temporary appointees. Some of the department's key legislative priorities - including intelligence law revisions and anti-crime proposals - also have bogged down because of the fight with Democrats over the prosecutor firings.

    "It takes away from normal work," one recently departed Justice official said about the persistent controversy over Gonzales's role in the firings and the use of improper political considerations in hiring career employees. "It obviously has a serious impact," said the former official, who would discuss the department's internal workings only if not identified.

    Many lawmakers, including some Republicans, have said that Gonzales should resign. But in his written testimony, released yesterday, Gonzales said: "I could walk away or I could devote my time, effort and energy to fix the problems. Since I have never been one to quit, I decided that the best course of action was to remain here."

    Referring indirectly to criticism that young, ideologically oriented aides such as former senior counselor Monica M. Goodling made improper decisions, Gonzales said, "I will continue to make efforts to ensure that my staff and others within the department have the appropriate experience and judgment so that previous mistakes will not be repeated."

    Gonzales again depicted himself as largely detached from controversial personnel practices, including the firings of the nine U.S. attorneys last year. But in a video message to Justice Department employees on Friday, he said, "I am sorry, and I accept full responsibility."

    "I am troubled because the allegations regarding the politicization of this historic institution - an institution that stands for and protects the rights of the citizens of the greatest, most free nation on Earth - have occurred on my watch," Gonzales said, according to a transcript.

    Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said yesterday: "We are confident that the men and women of the department are working distraction-free, protecting our neighborhoods from violent gangs, preventing acts of terrorism and protecting our children from predators."

    In the House, Conyers said the decision to move forward with contempt proceedings was made reluctantly, but he asserted that the committee had few options in the face of the White House's refusal to comply with committee subpoenas. "It is still my hope that they will reconsider this hard-line position and cooperate with our investigation so that we can get to the bottom of this matter," Conyers said.

    The panel's move comes after months of legal feuding between congressional Democrats and Bush. He has declared that details about the firings are protected from disclosure by executive privilege and need not be shared with Congress.

    The U.S. attorney firings last year - including seven on one day in December - came after a two-year effort by senior White House and Justice Department aides that targeted prosecutors for removal based in part on their perceived loyalty to the Bush administration and the GOP.

    Several of the prosecutors were improperly contacted by GOP lawmakers or staff members about active criminal probes of corruption involving elected officials. Justice investigators are looking into whether civil service laws were violated in other hiring and firing decisions.