Re: The Comey Testimony

Peter Swire at Think Progress finds some 2006 Gonzales testimony regarding the NSA wiretap program that's looking a tad, um, inconvenient at the moment:

GONZALES: Senator, here is a response that I feel that I can give with respect to recent speculation or stories about disagreements. There has not been any serious disagreement, including — and I think this is accurate — there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations, which I cannot get into. I will also say –

SCHUMER: But there was some — I am sorry to cut you off, but there was some dissent within the administration, and Jim Comey did express at some point — that is all I asked you — some reservations.

GONZALES: The point I want to make is that, to my knowledge, none of the reservations dealt with the program that we are talking about today.

Commenters The Good Reverend and Mike suggest that, with some hair-splitting factored in, Gonzales was indeed telling the truth. As GR put it:

I think Gonzales is drawing the fine distinction between the earlier program, which the DOJ objected to, and the post-change program, which DOJ was more okay with because of the secret notifications to eight congressional leaders.

Not all that different from arguing what the meaning of "is" is. What Gonzales was answering wasn't what Schumer was asking. Commenter Tom Betz points out that Amanda at Think Progress has further developments.