The Democrats are going completely insane over Alberto Gonzales. Today four Democratic Senators released a list of items of false testimony that they claim Gonzales gave to various committees, and called for the appointment of a special prosecutor and a perjury investigation.

The centerpiece of the Democrats' claims is Gonzales's testimony earlier this week that the subject of disagreement inside the Justice Department that gave rise to his visit to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in the hospital was "not about the terrorist surveillance program that the president announced to the American people," but rather was about "other intelligence activities." Earlier today, FBI Director Robert Mueller seemed to contradict Gonzales when he testified before a House committee that his impression was that the hospital visit did relate to the terrorist surveillance program. This was hearsay on Mueller's part, since he was not present at the interview, but arrived shortly after. He apparently got the impression that the TSP program was involved from Ashcroft.

Mueller's testimony was actually rather equivocal:

"Did you have an understanding that the conversation was on TSP?" asked Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas in a round of questioning that may have sounded to listeners like bureaucratic alphabet soup.

"I had an understanding the discussion was on a NSA program, yes," Mueller answered.

Jackson sought to clarify: "We use 'TSP,' we use 'warrantless wiretapping,' so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?"

"The discussion was on a national NSA program that has been much discussed, yes," Mueller responded.

I have no idea whether Mueller knows the difference between one NSA program and another; Gonzales may well be drawing a distinction between the "program that the President announced to the American people" and a second, perhaps related but still-secret program. It strikes me as extremely unlikely that Gonzales is lying about this, although he may be drawing a distinction that Chuck Schumer would consider subtle. There are two reasons for this: first, other individuals and documents would definitively answer the question, so it would be foolish to lie, and, second, I can't see any reason why it would make a difference. Who cares whether the hospital visit was about the NSA terrorist surveillance program that President Bush made public, or another NSA terrorist surveillance program that the President didn't make public? The idea that Gonzales would commit perjury on this point seems ludicrous.

The Senators' second example of Gonzales's supposedly false testimony in the linked article has to do with the firings of several U.S. Attorneys. Gonzales testified that "I haven’t talked to witnesses because of the fact that I haven’t wanted to interfere with this investigation and department investigations." Monica Goodling testified that she had a brief conversation with Gonzales in which he related his recollection of the relevant events. If there were evidence that Gonzales had conversations with a number of DOJ employees who were involved in the U.S. Attorney matter, it would be a plausible inference that Gonzales lied. But as far as is known, the only such employee was Goodling, and the context was her telling Gonzales that she was leaving his staff. Reminded of this exchange, Gonzales said on Tuesday that he was simply trying to console a distraught employee. That is consistent with Goodling's interpretation of the conversation:

I think, in all fairness, that he was just talking to someone on his staff and I was distraught and I was asking for a transfer.

And I think he was being kind.He's a very kind man.

This is not, to put it mildly, the stuff of which perjury investigations are ordinarily made. More broadly, the Democrats' attack on Gonzales resembles the Scooter Libby prosecution, in that there was no underlying wrongdoing. The President replaced eight or nine U.S. Attorneys who had served out their terms with other qualified nominees. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President. That's really all there is to that story. But it became the pretext for a fishing expedition by the Democrats, and as soon as they found a conflict between testimony by two witnesses--something that inevitably happens in just about any investigation--they started howling for a perjury prosecution.

These are dark days in Washington, and not because of Alberto Gonzales.

To comment on this post, go here.

Posted by John at 7:04 PM  |    |