More from the Constitution Subcommittee hearings on domestic spying

from think progress and the nyt...

Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC):
I’m not asking you to make anything public. I’m asking you, does that mean that the former attorney general had some reservations about — legal reservations about some aspects of the program, Mr. Bradbury?

Principal deputy assistant attorney general and the head of the Office of Legal Counsel Steven Bradbury:
Well, all I’ll say is what the attorney general has said, which is that disagreements arose, disagreements were addressed and resolved; however, those disagreements did not — were not about the particular activities that the president has publicly described, that we have termed the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

Bradbury’s testimony contradicts what Alberto Gonzales said just last week. Gonzales claimed that former Deputy Attorney General James Comey’s testimony about Ashcroft’s reservations related to the “program which the president confirmed to the American people sometime ago.”

So, if Gonzales is telling the truth, Bradbury misled Congress under oath. If Bradbury is telling the truth, it means that Gonzales has again lied about the controversy surrounding the administration’s spying efforts. Moreover, if Bradbury is correct that Ashcroft’s disagreements were not about the NSA warrantless wiretapping program, that must mean other spying programs exist.

any way you slice it, it's lies, lies, and more lies... speaking for myself, i have no doubt whatsoever that intensive, in-depth domestic surveillance is being conducted and has been for some time, extending back prior to the clinton administration...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet