Search results for Committee
Related searches : love committee you committee love rules committee the love committee you itty bitty titty committee movie
9, 
19:56, 
2008-04-01 13:30:50 Description: American Jewish Committee (comité des américains juifs), aussi connu sous les initiales AJC, a été « fondé en 1906 avec le but de regrouper toutes les (More) American Jewish Committee (comité des américains juifs), aussi connu sous les initiales AJC, a été « fondé en 1906 avec le but de regrouper toutes les composantes juives américaines pour défendre le d (Less)
Channel: dailymotionTags: sarkozy sarko kémi séba israel juif comunautarisme crif loby sionisme American Jewish Committee
Rate it: Rate:
12, 03:38, 2008-04-02 18:29:07 Description: The Love Committee - Access Peace
Channel: youtube Rate it: Rate:
7, 08:48, 2007-07-25 15:53:16 Description: Part 11 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Senator Jon Kyl questions Gonzales. 7/24/07
KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he would be asked beforehand. (More) Part 11 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Senator Jon Kyl questions Gonzales. 7/24/07
KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he would be asked beforehand. Nothing was a surprise - there was absolutely NO "GOTCHA!"
Transcript of this portion of the hearing:
KYL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Attorney General, as I understand it -- and I'm going to ask you to correct me if I'm wrong, to your knowledge -- the administration position on Guantanamo Bay is that, while it would be nice if we didn't have the need for it and we'd like to be able to close it, we can't because the terrorists who represent a threat to the United States need to be held somewhere and there are no better alternatives.
KYL: Almost nobody wants them in the United States. You can't just let them go. Sending them to foreign countries is problematic, among other reasons for the reasons you discussed.
Is that your understanding? And, if not, what is your understanding?
GONZALES: Yes.
KYL: Do you have any different reasons for desiring to close Gitmo, for example, because to your knowledge or suspicion, is there anything going on down there that might be a violation of either U.S. law or applicable treaties or conventions?
GONZALES: Quite the contrary. I think if people who have gone down there in this body, from the House, other countries, have come away favorably impressed with what's going on down there.
KYL: I just want to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Hatch. It would be nice if we didn't have to have any prisons for that matter. And it would certainly be good if we didn't have to have a place for these threats to America. But they do have to be held somewhere, and I know of no better alternative than where they're being held right now.
Let me ask you this question about a matter that you know I'm very interested in -- and as a matter of fact in a related, potentially related, matter, there is a scandal now brewing with regard to the National Basketball Association.
Sports entities, in particularly the NFL, major league baseball, basketball, the NCAA -- amateur athletics, have for a long time been concerned about Internet betting, which is illegal under most state laws and we have our federal laws as well.
You have -- and you're aware that on October 13th the president signed into law the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act to augment enforcement efforts by targeting offshore gambling operations that are not readily subject to U.S. prosecution.
KYL: There are additional, existing laws -- the Federal Wire Act and money laundering laws that can be and have been used to go after these Internet gambling operators.
I realize that you can't comment on any existing cases, but I'd like for you to just express to the committee generally what your views are with respect to the department's intentions with respect to going after these illegal Internet gambling operations.
GONZALES: Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your leadership on this issue.
We do believe it's a serious issue because, when you talk about Internet gambling, it's highly-addictive. Quite frankly, I think it affects our youth. I think it can be tied to money laundering and fraud, and we think it's tied to organized crime.
There are existing laws on the books, and we can and do enforce those laws. There are challenges because of the existing laws, challenges because, much of the time, the evidence is offshore. We may have difficulty in getting the evidence. Also, because it involves another country, there are sometimes serious issues of extradition.
So we appreciate the additional tools of this Unlawful Internet Gambling Act which bans certain financial payments to support Internet Gambling.
And, as you know, Treasury and the Federal Reserve have primary responsibility for the issuance of these regulations after consulting with the Department of Justice. We've provided input, and so my understanding is that those regs are moving forward.
KYL: The regs -- the proposed regs have been made public. My question really was a broader one. You have engaged in prosecutions under other laws as well, and I was simply giving you an opportunity to express your intentions to continue to enforce all of these laws to the extent that they need to be enforced.
GONZALES: We certainly intend to do that, and you have my commitment, Senator.
KYL: Incidentally, I may have not been clear in my reference to the NBA. I'm not suggesting that there's evidence of illegal Internet gambling with respect to that, but simply wanted to point out that these sports depend on the public's view that they are unadulterated, that they're clean, that they are not being affected by illegal forces.
And that's why they're so supportive of this legislation, to make sure that illegal Internet gambling does not, in any way, intrude into those sports. And I think Americans have a right to have that assurance.
Mr. Attorney General, the FBI is facing a mounting caseload of applications from foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States or to adjust status. The FBI, of course, does background checks, but there is a huge backlog, as you know.
What technologies or resources can Congress secure for the FBI to ensure that's it's able to timely process applications without compromising the safety and security of the American people?
GONZALES: This is a problem that I have discussed with the director. You're talking about background checks, individuals from other countries. It does take us a long time in some cases, because of the fact it requires us to get information and records from other countries.
I know that the director is focused on trying to get additional resources, additional individuals, maybe contract work out to helping in this endeavor. And so he's also looking at new computer system technology, taking advantage of technology...
KYL: Let me just interrupt because of the time.
There's a huge backlog. It shouldn't exist. Do we need to provide additional resources, Congress?
GONZALES: I don't know whether or not additional resources are required from the Congress. I do know that additional resources within the bureau have to be focused on this issue. And it may be -- the director may come to me and say, "Well, if we do that, we're not going to be able to protect America from terrorism the way we ought to be in other areas."
And so I don't know the answer to that. But certainly more resources are necessary. We may already have the resources within the bureau. I suspect the director will say no.
KYL: We need to know if there's something else we can do, because you cannot compromise security and we cannot tolerate the long backlogs that currently exist. So something needs to give here. And if it is that we need more resources, Congress needs to be advised.
Let me quickly, while I have just a second, ask one final question. A U.S. Customs and Border Protection -- DHS reports that 16 percent of foreign nationals apprehended illegally crossing the southern border have criminal histories. That's about 140,000 individuals in the year 2005.
And if that's not alarming enough, DOJ and the GAO indicate that criminal aliens in the U.S. are re-arrested on an average of six to eight times per offender, which puts a huge strain on both federal, state and local law enforcement officers, prosecutors, courts and our jails.
Is the Department of Justice undertaking any initiatives with DHS to proactively identify and prosecute and remove criminal aliens? And, here again, is there any authority or resource that Congress needs to provide to DOJ to assist in the prosecution of these criminal aliens?
GONZALES: I think that, quite candidly, Senator, if you were to talk to my board of U.S. attorneys, they would say we need more resources. And so, we're always looking at ways to try to find those resources within the existing budget.
Obviously the president has to consider a number of priorities with respect to the budget that he submits to the Congress. And the Congress, of course, ultimately makes the decision as to where those priorities should come out.
But we're having to be smart. We're trying to have -- to be more efficient. But it does present or has presented some challenges for us.
KYL: In effect -- Mr. Chairman, could I just do one follow-up question?
In effect, are you saying...
LEAHY: Go ahead.
KYL: ... you understand the president's budget priorities and needs all across the government but, if more resources could be made available to you, you could certainly take advantage of them, could certainly use them?
GONZALES: We certainly would put them to good use.
LEAHY: Of course, you're also aware that the president said if we put any money in there beyond what he's asked for, he'll veto the bill? (Less)
Channel: youtubeTags: 11 7/24/07 alberto committee cspan cssjcagpt1172407 gonzales jon judiciary kyl part senate transcript
Rate it: Rate:
16, 00:58, 2008-04-25 17:32:46 Description: Vendor room: The Yaoi Hobo Committee! JOIN US! xD
Channel: youtube Rate it: Rate:
17, 08:43, 2008-04-25 17:06:55 Description: Yaoi Hobo Committee at No brand con 2008. Mello was hawt. xD
Channel: youtube Rate it: Rate:
![ASIA Cocktail 2007 [Committee Dance]](http://img.youtube.com/vi/b-kPGLMTFOI/2.jpg "ASIA Cocktail 2007 [Committee Dance]")
10, 04:07, 2007-10-06 10:33:51 Description: ASIA Cocktail Committee Dance @ Metro City. October 5th, 2007.
Song List:
- MIMS ft. Marques Houston - This is Why I'm Hot (Remix)
- (not sure of this one)
- Pussycat Dolls ft. Busta Rhymes (More) ASIA Cocktail Committee Dance @ Metro City. October 5th, 2007.
Song List:
- MIMS ft. Marques Houston - This is Why I'm Hot (Remix)
- (not sure of this one)
- Pussycat Dolls ft. Busta Rhymes - Don't Cha
- MIMS - Like This (Unknown Remix)
Mixed by - ??? (Less)
Channel: youtube Rate it: Rate:
9, 54:10, 2008-04-17 11:19:58 Description: Members of the International Rescue Committee visit Google's Mountain View, CA, headquarters for a discussion with Google employees about the organization's work. This event took place on (More) Members of the International Rescue Committee visit Google's Mountain View, CA, headquarters for a discussion with Google employees about the organization's work. This event took place on March 13, 2008, as part of the Authors@Google series. (Less)
Channel: youtubeTags: Authors@Google Committee George Heidi International IRC Lehman Nonprofits Purdin Rentzer Rescue Rupp Susan
Rate it: Rate:
9, 08:42, 2007-07-25 13:02:52 Description: Part 8 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Senator Kohl questions Gonzales. 7/24/07
KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he would be asked beforehand. (More) Part 8 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Senator Kohl questions Gonzales. 7/24/07
KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he would be asked beforehand. Nothing was a surprise - there was absolutely NO "GOTCHA!"
Transcript of this portion of the hearing:
LEAHY: Thank you very much.
Senator Kohl?
KOHL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Attorney General, the detention center at Guantanamo Bay continues to harm our image around the world. There's growing consensus on this. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told the House Committee, quote, "I came to this job thinking that Guantanamo Bay should be closed."
KOHL: According to press reports, Secretary of State Rice has also supported efforts within the administration to close Guantanamo.
And former Secretary of State Colin Powell said, quote, "If it was up to me, I would close Guantanamo -- not tomorrow, but this afternoon."
Last year even the president himself recognized that Guantanamo has been the focus of international criticism and he said, I quote, "I'd like to, quote, 'close Guantanamo.'"
Recent press reports have disclosed that efforts are under way in the administration to do that. According to the New York Times, however, these efforts, quote, "were rejected after Attorney General Gonzales and some other government lawyers expressed strong objections."
So where are you on this? Do you think that we should close Guantanamo?
GONZALES: I wish we could close Guantanamo. I'm with everyone else: We should close Guantanamo.
However, a need remains -- and there are legitimate questions about what do you do with these individuals?
I guess we could turn them loose, Senator, and they could end up fighting against us again. We could bring them into the United States, although I understand the Senate recently rejected that overwhelmingly.
Bringing them into the United States raises some serious legal issues. And as the attorney general, my job was to make sure that all the policy-makers were aware that there were serious legal issues that would arise if in fact they were brought into the United States.
But if your question is, would I support closing Guantanamo? Absolutely, but not at the risk of the lives of our men and women who are fighting overseas and not at the risk of the national security of our country.
KOHL: But we can put them into the American justice system, an American justice system that you know has worked very effectively even with respect to dealing with terrorists and members of Al Qaida. There are ways in which we can restrict classified information, important information.
So if you support closing Guantanamo, then why don't you put into motion the kinds of things that will result in just that?
GONZALES: Senator, I do believe there are legitimate risks involved in bringing people into the United States and putting them into our system, quite frankly.
KOHL: What are the risks?
GONZALES: Let's say that the evidence that we have is not evidence that we want to compromise in order to bring someone to trial. Once they're into the United States, if they come from a country where if we send them back they may be tortured, they will have the right to ask for asylum. And so we may not have the ability to either hold them or to throw them out of the United States, and we have to let them go.
And so those are, sort of, the nightmare scenarios that we worry about in bringing people into the United States.
KOHL: Are you saying, therefore, that you do not support closing Guantanamo?
GONZALES: I support closing Guantanamo, Senator, but I think we need to do it with our eyes wide open.
I think we probably will come to the Congress and ask for legislation in order to ensure that we can protect this country.
KOHL: Why don't we do that?
GONZALES: That is certainly something that is of serious discussion and debate within the administration.
KOHL: So you may in fact decide to close Guantanamo and come to Congress for authorization.
GONZALES: Again, there's been no decision made by the president. My judgment is the president, like you, wants to close Guantanamo, but, like you, he doesn't want to do so if it means jeopardizing the security of our country.
And so, we're trying to work through these. And you're right, it will ultimately, in my judgment, require additional consultation with the Congress.
KOHL: Mr. Attorney General, consumers today, as you know, are suffering from near-record high gas prices, and most of this is due to the high price of crude oil.
Despite this, the administration has threatened to veto our NOPEC legislation, which would enable the Justice Department, and only the Justice Department, to sue OPEC member nations for violating U.S. antitrust law when they conspire to fix the price of oil, which they do.
This bill passed both the House and the Senate with overwhelming margins. Under this bill, the Justice Department, and only the Justice Department, could institute this kind of a proceeding. So why do you not want this authority?
GONZALES: I think cartels are bad, and we ought to prosecute them and go after them.
GONZALES: I agree with that.
The question is whether or not going after this cartel in this way, through litigation, is the right approach, because you implicate questions of sovereignty and state action. And, you know, it calls into question the fact that, you know, we have a presence overseas and does that mean that either the American government or American businesses are going to be subject to litigation and the jurisdiction of other countries overseas?
I think that that's a concern that we have is the downstream impact, or the result, the impetus that's going to arise as a result of this legislation.
And we think that a better approach is to continue to try to work through this through the Department of Energy and the Department of State, through diplomatic means.
And that's the concern that we have, Senator.
Again, cartels are bad. We'd like to deal with it. I just -- we're concerned that this may not be the best approach.
KOHL: But you don't have to use it. Because you don't -- you know that the only way in which the legislation can be effected is through the president and the Department of Justice. So if you think it's legislation that should not be used, so you won't use it.
GONZALES: But once Congress passes the legislation and puts it on the books, what's going to be the response of another country who sees this action taken by the Congress? And are they going to take some kind of action in response to simply the legislation passing?
It's hard to predict. I would simply urge the Congress to consider giving the Department of State and the Department of Energy additional time to try to work through this.
KOHL: Mr. Attorney General, since our last oversight hearing, it seems that very little has improved at the Justice Department. And many of the people in senior positions have resigned, as you know. And according to press reports, these positions have not been filled, in many cases because people have turned down these jobs. The American public has lost confidence in you according to recent polls. Morale at the Justice Department remains low. The integrity of the
Office of the Attorney General as an institution is obviously more important, I'm sure you would agree, than the person sitting in it. In other words, Mr. Attorney General, this cannot be just all about you.
And so, would you please explain to us why the administration of justice and the American people would not be better served by somebody sitting in the office who does not have all of the problems that you possess with respect to believability, credibility, confidence, trust? What keeps you in the job, Mr. Attorney General?
GONZALES: That's a very good question, Senator.
Ultimately I have to decide whether or not it would be better for me to leave or just stay and try to fix the problems. I've decided to stay and fix the problems. And that's what -- and that's what I have been doing.
You talked about vacancies. We're at a time in the administration where there are going to be vacancies in agencies. It's just natural.
Obviously there have been changes in personnel at the leadership of the department. In many ways, that is a good thing. We've just identified a new interim deputy attorney general who's a career prosecutor. I think he'll do a great job.
GONZALES: I've got a chief of staff who's also a United States attorney.
And so we've got -- we're bringing in good, experienced people into these positions, because we want to address the question about lack of leadership. I think we have some strong leadership in the Department of Justice.
We've changed policies. We've been made aware of some issues relating to some of our policies, with respect to hiring immigration judges, with respect to the honors program, with respect to hiring assistant United States attorneys, with respect to hiring in Civil Rights Division. And so we've implemented policies to address each and every one of these.
We've also worked very hard to improve communication; not with just the U.S. attorney community, but also with respect to every employee at the Department of Justice.
I think the way you measure morale is you measure output. And I think if you look at the output at the department these past six months, it's been outstanding.
Sure, we've had to deal with these issues. They're my responsibility, and I've accepted responsibility for it. But the wonderful career people at the department continue doing their job day in and day out, and justice is being served in this country.
KOHL: Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Less)
Channel: youtubeTags: 7/24/07 8 alberto committee cspan cssjcagpt872407 gonzales judiciary kohl part senate transcript
Rate it: Rate:
11, 08:53, 2007-07-25 01:04:09 Description: Part 5 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Chairman Patrick Leahy begins the questioning. 7/24/07
KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he would be asked (More) Part 5 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Chairman Patrick Leahy begins the questioning. 7/24/07
KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he would be asked beforehand. Nothing was a surprise - there was absolutely NO "GOTCHA!"
Transcript of this portion of the hearing:
LEAHY: Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. And your full statement, of course, will be made part of the record.
We have documents that we have not in answer to a request made by this and other committees, but obtained through Freedom of Information Act lawsuits. They indicate that you received reports in 2005 and 2006 of violations in connection with the Patriot Act, abuses of national security letters. The violations apparently included unauthorized surveillance, illegal searches and improper collection of data.
LEAHY: But when you testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in April of 2005, you sought to create the impression that Americans' civil liberties and privacies were being effectively safeguarded and respected.
And you said, and I quote, "The track record established over the past three years has demonstrated the effectiveness of the safeguards of civil liberties put in place when the act was passed."
Then I sent you written questions. And earlier this month, you responded about when you first learned of problems with national security letters. But in those responses, you didn't mention these earlier reports of problems.
So my question is this. As you know, I've written a number of these questions to you in advance so that you will be able to answer. Would you like to revise or correct your April 2005 testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which was misleading, or your July 6, 2007, response to this committee's written questions, related?
You care to revise either of them?
GONZALES: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
And I can understand the confusion of concern about my prior statements, which, of course, were made in connection with the discussions about reauthorization of the Patriot Act, and were also made in the context of the I.G.'s investigation of abuses under the Patriot Act, exercising his authority under the Patriot Act to investigate abuses.
And my comments reflect -- are similar to comments made by the director of the FBI...
LEAHY: I don't care if they're similar to anybody else. They're your comments that I'm concerned about. I'm not concerned about somebody else's comments. I'm concerned about yours. They seemed contradictory.
GONZALES: And my comments reflected the understanding, on my part, Mr. Chairman, that IOB violations -- which is what I want to refer to these, as IOB violations, referrals or violations made to the Intelligence Oversight Board -- that these do not reflect, as a general matter, intentional abuses of the Patriot Act.
LEAHY: Are you saying they're not abuses if they're not committed without malice? Is that what you're saying?
GONZALES: That's not what I'm saying.
(CROSSTALK)
GONZALES: Obviously, they're very, very -- and every such abuse, because it does constitute abuse, is in fact referred to the IOB and also is in fact referred to the Inspection Division at the FBI.
Now, the good news is that when the referral occurs, there is an examination and appropriate action is taken.
The other bit of good news is, as I have directed, that each IOB referral to the FBI will also be made simultaneously to the National Security Division. And the National Security Division is going to study these IOBs, make a semiannual report to me, and identify whether or not there are any trends there that we identify.
LEAHY: Well, let me ask you about that. Because I understand that approximately 500 -- and if you want to go back and elaborate on your answer, I will certainly give you time, because I don't think you've answered the question I asked.
LEAHY: But you keep talking about the Intelligence Oversight Board. These things are referred to it.
I understand that approximately 500 incidents are annually referred to the Intelligence Oversight Board, but the general counsel of the FBI hasn't received a single response from the board. I mean, I thought I was the only one that didn't get responses, but apparently 500 a year you don't get back a single response. The board has not sent forward a single report of potentially unlawful intelligence activities. But you talk about oversight system and report to that same board.
I mean, I -- you know, is this, "Oh, gosh, we have a problem. We won't tell anybody about it. We'll send it to somebody who will file it away and nothing will ever be heard again, so therefore we have no problems"? It's almost an Alice in Wonderland situation.
GONZALES: I think you've misunderstood my response, Mr. Chairman.
What I said, or certainly intended to say, was the fact that it's referred to the IOB doesn't mean that it stops there. It is also sent to the Inspections Division and appropriate action is taken.
We've also instituted another check by involving the National Security Division so that they can also identify any trends and make suggestions in policies or training so that we can address these kinds of issues.
LEAHY: In April 2005, when you said, "The track record established in the past three years demonstrates the effectiveness of the safeguards" -- that there, basically there hadn't been any violations, was that correct or not? Had there been violations?
GONZALES: What I can say is...
LEAHY: Three years before you testified, had there been any violations?
GONZALES: The violations...
LEAHY: Yes or no?
GONZALES: A violation of IOB may not be a violation of the Patriot Act. In fact, the inspector general, I think, has indicated that.
And, Mr. Chairman, my view and the views of other leadership in the department is in fact when we're talking about abuses of the Patriot Act, we're talking about intentional, deliberate misuse of the Patriot Act, not when some agent writes down the wrong phone number in a national security letter.
And, of course, whenever a mistake like that happens, of course we address it and appropriate action is taken.
LEAHY: Such as?
GONZALES: We institute training for -- additional training. It's a question of providing additional guidance, providing additional training or disciplinary action against the agent.
LEAHY: Well, (inaudible) ask you this. We have 93 United States attorneys. Only 70 have been confirmed by the Senate. Any idea when we're going to get -- six have just been sent up -- when we're going to get the 17 remaining ones?
GONZALES: We are working as hard as we can with the White House and with members of Congress so that we can go through the vetting process, evaluation process, so we can make recommendations to the president.
The full intent is that, as I've committed to this committee, is that we are going to have Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys in these positions.
LEAHY: I would hope so, because you tried to do that backdoor thing you got inserted into the law. And the Congress has repealed that because of revulsion (ph) of the use of it. The president signed that.
My last question is this: As you know, if either the Senate or House finds somebody in contempt, they have to refer it to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who has to then not necessarily prosecute, but at least present the contempt citation to a grand jury to determine whether criminal charges are appropriate.
LEAHY: Last week, the administration said that the U.S. attorney wouldn't be allowed to carry out that.
So my question to you is, if a house of Congress certified a contempt citation against former or current officials for failing to appear or comply with a congressional subpoena, would you permit the U.S. attorney to carry out the law and refer the matter to a grand jury, as required by 2 USC 194, and, therefore, fulfill the constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law, or would you block the execution of the law?
GONZALES: Mr. Chairman, your question relates to an ongoing controversy which I am recused from. I can't -- I'm not going to answer that question.
LEAHY: Is there anybody left in the Department of Justice who could answer the question?
GONZALES: Of course there is.
LEAHY: Who?
GONZALES: With respect to these kind of decisions...
LEAHY: Who?
GONZALES: ... will be made by the solicitor general.
LEAHY: Well, then we may ask him whether on this refusal to prosecute that the administration talked about, whether that extends to the executive branch lying to Congress,or perjury or destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice. Because, Mr. Attorney General, those are going to be real issues. They're not going to be -- they're not going to be just debating points.
Thank you. (Less)
Channel: youtubeTags: 5 7/24/07 alberto committee cspan cssjcagpt572407 gonzales judiciary leahy part patrick senate transcript
Rate it: Rate:
10, 07:57, 2007-07-25 17:32:48 Description: Part 15 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse questions Alberto Gonzales. 7/24/07
KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he would be (More) Part 15 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse questions Alberto Gonzales. 7/24/07
KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he would be asked beforehand. Nothing was a surprise - there was absolutely NO "GOTCHA!"
Transcript of this portion of the hearing:
WHITEHOUSE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gonzales, just before our little break, you indicated, in describing your reason for visiting the stricken attorney general in his hospital room was to alert him to the change in the Department of Justice view of the program at issue.
And you testified that Attorney General Ashcroft -- and these are the words that I wrote down -- quote, "Authorized these activities for over two years."
Is it your testimony, under oath, that Attorney General Ashcroft was read into and authorized the program at issue for two years prior to your visit to him in that hospital?
GONZALES: I want to be very careful here, because it's fairly complicated.
What I can say is I'm referring to intelligence activities that existed for a period of over two years and what we were asking the Department of Justice to do was -- which they had approved and what we...
WHITEHOUSE: "They had approved" I guess is the point that I'm getting at.
GONZALES: General Ashcroft, yes.
WHITEHOUSE: You're saying that Attorney General Ashcroft...
GONZALES: Yes.
WHITEHOUSE: ... had authorized this program for over two years prior to that day...
GONZALES: General Ashcroft had authorized these very important intelligence activities for a period of two years. We had gone -- we had gone to the deputy attorney general and asked him to reauthorize these same activities.
But there are facts here, and I want to be fair to everyone involved. They're complicated. And we have had discussions in the Intel Committees about this issue. I'll try to be as forthcoming as we can.
Let me just say I believe everyone acted in good faith here. All the lawyers worked as hard as they could to try to find a way forward, the right solution.
But, yes. I mean, the view was is that these activities had been authorized.
GONZALES: We informed...
WHITEHOUSE: By Attorney General Ashcroft?
GONZALES: By Attorney General Ashcroft. But there are additional facts here that -- I want to be fair. And it's complicated, but...
WHITEHOUSE: I'm just trying to nail that one fact down. I'm not trying to...
GONZALES: Well, I'm not sure that I...
(CROSSTALK)
GONZALES: I'm not sure I can give you complete comfort -- I'm not sure I want to give you complete comfort on that point, out of fairness to others involved in what happened here.
I want to be very fair to them. But what I'm -- what we are talking about...
WHITEHOUSE: (inaudible) different question.
LEAHY: Why not just be fair to the truth?
Just be fair to the truth and answer the question.
(APPLAUSE)
WHITEHOUSE: Was Attorney General Ashcroft read into, and did he approve the program at issue from its inception?
GONZALES: General Ashcroft was read into these activities, and did approve these activities...
WHITEHOUSE: Beginning when?
GONZALES: From the very beginning. I believe, from the very beginning.
WHITEHOUSE: All right.
GONZALES: But, well...
WHITEHOUSE: I'm sorry? My question...
(CROSSTALK)
GONZALES: Again, it's very complicated. And I want to be fair to General Ashcroft and others involved in this. And it's hard to describe this in this open setting. We've tried to be -- we've tried to discuss -- we have discussed in the Intel Committees, in terms of exactly what happened here.
But I can't get into the fine details, quite frankly, because I want to be fair to General Ashcroft.
WHITEHOUSE: And I think it's also important that people know whether or not a program was run with or without the approval of the Department of Justice but without the knowledge and approval of the attorney general of the United States, if that was ever the case.
GONZALES: We believe we had the approval of the attorney general of the United States for a period of two years.
WHITEHOUSE: For a period of two years?
GONZALES: That is what...
(CROSSTALK)
WHITEHOUSE: Also from the inception of the program?
GONZALES: From the very -- from the inception, we believed that we had the approval of the attorney general of the United States for these activities, these particular activities.
WHITEHOUSE: Would that be reflected in any document?
GONZALES: Yes, it would.
WHITEHOUSE: We'll pursue the document later.
When you went into the attorney general's room at the hospital that night, what document did you have in your hand?
GONZALES: I had in my possession a document to reauthorize the program.
WHITEHOUSE: Where is it now?
GONZALES: I'm assuming the document is at the White House. It was a White House document.
WHITEHOUSE: And it would be covered by presidential records laws?
GONZALES: It is a White House document.
WHITEHOUSE: Director Mueller was involved that evening. Do you consider Director Mueller to be reasonable, sober and level-headed?
GONZALES: Yes.
WHITEHOUSE: He's a former deputy attorney general, former United States attorney?
GONZALES: Yes.
WHITEHOUSE: Why would he tell FBI agents not to allow you and Andy Card to throw the acting attorney general out of the attorney general's hospital room?
GONZALES: I don't know that he did that, and I can't respond to your question. I'm not Director Mueller.
WHITEHOUSE: But we have direct testimony that he did. You can't -- is there any series of events that led up to this that would so provoke him...
GONZALES: I wasn't aware of that comment until I read Mr. Comey's testimony.
WHITEHOUSE: Is there some background to this that would help elaborate why he would have that feeling?
I mean, when the FBI director considers you so nefarious that FBI agents had to be ordered not to leave you alone with the stricken attorney general, that's a fairly serious challenge.
GONZALES: Well, again, I'm not sure that the director knew at the time of the meeting and a conversation that we had had with the congressional leaders.
We were -- again, we were there following an emergency meeting in the White House Situation Room with the gang of eight, who said, "Despite the recommendation of the attorney general, go forward with very important intelligence activities for now and we'll see about moving forward some legislation." And that was important information that led us to go to the hospital room.
The director, I'm quite confident, did not have that information when he made those statements, if he made those statements.
WHITEHOUSE: Is it awkward to supervise the FBI after this piece of history has come out, that the director didn't feel comfortable leaving you alone with the attorney general?
GONZALES: I can't speak for the director's feelings about me. But I still have a great deal of confidence and admiration and respect for Bob Mueller.
WHITEHOUSE: Separate topic: Will you allow the White House to direct United States attorneys how to conduct litigation to which the White House is itself a party?
GONZALES: Would I...
WHITEHOUSE: Would you allow the White House to direct United States attorneys how to conduct litigation to which the White House is a party?
GONZALES: I don't believe so.
Again, you're asking me a hypothetical. But my reaction to that is no.
WHITEHOUSE: Is there any matter -- any matter that the Department of Justice is involved in in which you would allow the Department of Justice to agree to the investigative terms set by the White House for this committee: no transcript, closed-door interviews, one round of questions only and then nevermore?
WHITEHOUSE: Is there any matter in the department's jurisdiction where you would allow your lawyers to subject themselves to that kind of a restriction in doing their duties?
GONZALES: You know I can't answer that question.
I mean, I don't know. There may be a matter, but I don't know. I don't know.
WHITEHOUSE: Can you think of one...
GONZALES: Again, I mean, I could probably think of one, so...
WHITEHOUSE: ... where you would allow your lawyers to be subject to those restrictions?
GONZALES: Senator, again, you're asking me is it possible? I'd say virtually anything is possible. But, obviously, that's something we'd have to look at.
WHITEHOUSE: My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. (Less)
Channel: youtubeTags: 15 7/24/07 alberto cheney committee cspan cssjcagpt1572407 gonzales judiciary part senate sheldon whitehouse
Rate it: Rate:
13, 02:27:00, 2008-04-02 13:34:53 Description: The MRSD budget committee meeting from January 8th, 2008
Channel: veoh Rate it: Rate:
18, 02:27, 2008-04-20 17:58:55 Description: Wellington Schools Facility Committee Presentation
Channel: youtube Rate it: Rate:
8, 01:37, 2007-05-07 13:12:03 Description: Yeah The First Committee, the only one that really was doing hard work!
MUNOL rocks!
´t was MUNOLicious!
Channel: youtube Rate it: Rate:
8, 06:35, 2007-07-25 22:20:04 Description: Part 22 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Senator Russ Feingold's questions to Alberto Gonzales. 7/24/07
KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he (More) Part 22 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Senator Russ Feingold's questions to Alberto Gonzales. 7/24/07
KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he would be asked beforehand. Nothing was a surprise - there was absolutely NO "GOTCHA!"
Transcript of this portion of the hearing:
FEINGOLD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will be shortly introducing a resolution to censure the president and senior members of his administration for undermining the rule of law.
From authorizing an illegal wiretapping program to claiming the power to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without charging them, I think this administration has shown disdain for the Constitution and the laws of the land.
You have played a central role in that effort, so I'd like to give you an opportunity to defend your actions.
With respect to the NSA's illegal wiretapping program, last year in hearings before this committee and the House Judiciary Committee, you stated that, quote, "There has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed," unquote, that any disagreement that did occur, quote, "did not deal with the program that I am here testifying about today," unquote and that, quote, "The disagreement that existed does not relate to the program the president confirmed in December to the American people," unquote.
FEINGOLD: Two months ago, you sent a letter to me and other members of this committee defending that testimony and asserting that it remains accurate. And I believe you said that again today.
Now, as you probably know, I'm a member of the Intelligence Committee. And therefore, I'm one of the members of this committee who has been briefed on the NSA wiretapping program and other sensitive intelligence programs.
I've had the opportunity to review the classified matters at issue here. And I believe that your testimony was misleading, at best.
I am prevented from elaborating in this setting, but I intend to send you a classified letter explaining why I have come to that conclusion.
Mr. Attorney General, the integrity of the congressional testimony of the highest law enforcement official in this country is an extremely important matter. I'd therefore ask that after reviewing that letter, you provide clarification in a classified setting.
But also please consider how you can address this issue publicly to dispel the doubts about your veracity that this episode has raised.
Will you agree to do that?
GONZALES: I certainly would endeavor to do that, Senator.
I guess I'm very surprised at your conclusion that I may have been misleading, if, in fact, you understood the briefings in the Intel Committees, quite frankly.
I find your statement surprising, so I look forward to your correspondence.
FEINGOLD: I look forward to your -- the information in the classified setting and to your public attempts to set this straight. And I strongly disagree with your analysis of how somebody would come down as to whether you were misleading.
And, in fact, I'm appalled in addition by your efforts today to try to shift responsibility for the effort to strong-arm Attorney General Ashcroft.
First, given your history of misleading this committee, I don't know why we should trust your account of the situation.
Secondly, unless you're talking about a covert action, the limited gang of eight briefing itself was a violation of the National Security Act.
And, third, it was you, Mr. Attorney General, who visited the hospital to try to strong-arm a sick man who had temporarily relinquished his responsibility. You -- you are responsible for those actions.
PROTESTER: You are shameful!
FEINGOLD: At your confirmation hearing in January, 2005, I asked you whether the president has the power to authorize warrantless wiretapping under the theories of the torture memo, and you called my question, quote, "hypothetical," unquote, when you knew full well -- full well -- that this had been going on for years.
You could have spoken to me after the hearing and told me that there was something I should know that you couldn't explain in open session, but you did not.
Then, during your campaign to reauthorize the Patriot Act, you told Congress that there were no abuses of that law that we needed to worry about, even though you had documents showing there had actually been problems with the Patriot Act and other surveillance authorities.
FEINGOLD: Then again last year you came to this committee and told us that there had not been any serious disagreement about the warrantless wiretapping program the president confirmed in late 2005, a statement I believe was misleading at best.
In every case you somehow managed to come up with some convoluted theory for why your statement was technically accurate. When you look at all these incidents together, it's hard to see anything but a pattern of intentionally misleading Congress again and again.
Shouldn't the attorney general of the United States meet a higher standard?
GONZALES: The attorney general of the United States should try to meet the highest standard. And I have tried to meet that standard, Senator.
FEINGOLD: Do you feel you've met that standard?
GONZALES: Obviously, there have been instances where I have not met that standard, and I've tried to correct that.
When those standards have not been met, I've tried to make amends and try to clarify to the committee and to the American people about statements that I've made.
FEINGOLD: You state in your testimony that the administration has transmitted to Congress a proposal to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And yet your department still refuses to share with this committee and with the Intelligence Committee basic information about the evolution of the department's legal justifications for the illegal wiretapping program from 2001 to the present.
And your legislative proposal contains a provision that would grant blanket immunity to individuals who cooperate with the government for participating in certain unidentified intelligence activities.
How can you come to Congress with a straight face and ask for this immunity provision, yet at the same time refuse to tell most members of Congress what they would be granting immunity for?
GONZALES: Well, of course, we have provided briefings to the Intel Committees.
And, again, we don't think -- you know, we went to companies for help. They provided help in trying to protect this country. And we think that's appropriate for the Congress to consider.
FEINGOLD: But I'm asking you how you can say that in light of the fact that most members of the Congress won't even be told what they're being granted immunity for.
GONZALES: Well, again, we have provided what is in the judgment of the administration the appropriate briefings to the Congress about these activities.
FEINGOLD: I don't think that cuts it for most people who are going to be voting on this.
Do you agree that the potential liability of private entities for failing to follow the law is an important part of the enforcement of our privacy laws?
GONZALES: If I understand your question, yes.
FEINGOLD: I'm not asking whether you think there was an illegal activity in any particular instance. I'm asking you whether you think private liability is an important part of the enforcement scheme of our privacy laws.
GONZALES: I think as a general matter that would be true, yes.
FEINGOLD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Less)
Channel: youtube Rate it: Rate:
3, 03:02, 2007-11-16 04:12:59 Description: Agriculture Committee discusses the wine market reform - EP targets abusive airport fees - Report on developing adult learning
Channel: youtube Rate it: Rate:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [»] [67]
Recent searches
anal casting 6s ago bangbus 3s ago candid foot rubbing 1s ago cum 3s ago dragon ball af goku 4s ago hidden masturbation 1s ago horny sister 5s ago husband talks 7s ago jenna haze 3s ago joan severance 4s ago lori rivers video 7s ago movie grandpa fucked grandma 4s ago perfect babe beach 4s ago poseidon avi 5s ago real hidden coed girls 1s ago rocket bukkake 4s ago rpg horror shooter in 3d... 7s ago sex arab 4s ago share amateur 2s ago simatic step7 2s ago steven gaudette 6s ago teen dildo 2s ago traci lords 1s ago train sex 2s ago video redo 3s ago
Recently watched videos
What is viral today ?
Quicklist (0)
No videos on quicklist
This list is temporary even if You are logged in. You can save it to permanent list.
My video lists
You must be logged to see all your lists. Please log in here.
Bookmark us
Please, link us: