SCHUMER: OK. Good morning, everybody.

And I want to thank my colleagues who are standing with me today. We're here at a sad moment. We're asking the solicitor general to appoint a special counsel to investigate potential perjury by the attorney general.

Earlier this week, Attorney General Gonzales testified before the Judiciary Committee. And his inability to answer simple and straightforward questions was just stunning.

The attorney general took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Instead, he tells the half-truth, the partial truth and everything but the truth. And he does it not once, and not twice, but over and over and over again.

His instinct is not to tell the truth but to dissemble and deceive.

Not only that, but this week he contradicted his prior statements, he contradicted the sworn testimony of Jim Comey, and he contradicted a letter written by former director of national intelligence John Negroponte.

I asked him back in February 2006 at a Judiciary hearing whether there was any dissent over the terrorist surveillance program, TSP. He swore that there was not.

Then in May of this year, I asked Jim Comey about dissent about classified programs, and he told a story that shocked the country: Virtually the entire leadership of the department was prepared to resign in March 2004. And the attorney general swore to us that there was no dissent.

We then pressed the attorney general on Tuesday about the apparent contradiction. He testified, under oath, that the internal dissent at the Department of Justice was not about the TSP, and suggested that the purpose of the emergency meeting with the so-called gang of eight on March 10th, 2004, was not about the TSP.

SCHUMER: Both of those statements appear to be false. We know now that the emergency meeting was about the TSP. We know from senators who were there, and we know from a letter from John Negroponte. It's in black and white.

And these are just the latest in a series of troubling misstatements by our chief law enforcement officer. He testified that he hadn't talked to witnesses about the U.S. attorney investigation, but Ms. Goodling testified that she had a conversation with the attorney general that made her uncomfortable.

He also testified in 2005 that there were no abuses of the Patriot Act. We have now learned that when he made those statements the attorney general knew about a number of failures to protect rights under the Patriot Act.

Enough is truly enough. Not for us, not even for the Senate, but for the 90,000 employees of the Justice Department and for 300 million Americans who need, at the very minimum, an attorney general who can tell the truth.

For months we have seen the Department of Justice unravel like a ball of yarn. And what we have seen has been terribly disturbing. I have not seen anything like it from a witness in the 27 years that I have been in Congress.

This Department of Justice is one that puts emphasis on political loyalty rather than upholding the rule of law. This department is one that fires, by all accounts, some of its most talented employees and then is unable to give an explanation as to why.

SCHUMER: And at the helm of this Department of Justice is a man who has potentially misled Congress and the American people time and time again. We simply cannot stand for this any longer.

The attorney general is meant to be the chief law enforcement officer of the land. He must be a person of truth and candor and integrity. The record, which grows day by day, is making it clear that the attorney general is not such a person.

Now, obviously, the attorney general cannot investigate himself. That's why the four of us have signed a letter to Paul Clement, the solicitor general, and also acting attorney general in matters where Gonzales has recused himself.

We ask that he appoint a special counsel, someone of unimpeachable integrity, ability and experience to investigate the attorney general. We ask that that person come from outside the Justice Department so there will be no conflicts of interest, real or apparent.

We have also talked to Senator Leahy who is, in his usual careful and considerate way, giving the attorney general some extra time for his statements.

But he believes our process and what he is doing -- giving the attorney general a week and then talking to the inspector general -- the two are dovetailing with one another and are supportive of one another. We also have the support of Leader Reid in what we are asking for.

We had all hoped that it wouldn't come to this, but we simply cannot let this abuse of power continue unchecked.

Senator Feinstein?

FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much. Just put this down.
I gave a lot of thought as to whether I wanted to join in this effort or not, and I decided that I really had no choice, and I want to try and outline my reasons for that decision here today.

FEINSTEIN: I deeply believe that Americans look to their attorney general to be above reproach, to be independent and to be free from political influence. They want a straight shooter who will enforce the law no matter what.

But Alberto Gonzales has turned this office on its head. Rather than be a straight shooter, this attorney general obfuscates. Rather than demonstrate independence, this attorney general states that he is dual hatted and serves the president as well as the people. Rather than enforce the law without fear or favor, this attorney general has allowed politics to enter the Justice Department. And where his mission is to uphold the law, Attorney General Gonzales may have crossed the line and misled Congress or even perjured himself.

So we're calling for an independent special counsel largely for three reasons.

One, to look at whether, in fact, the department has been politicized.

Two, to evaluate his misleading and often untrue statements to the Congress.

And to also look at the administration's decision to block any United States attorney from pursuing charges of contempt of Congress against officials who have refused to comply with congressional subpoenas.

I have never seen an attorney general so contemptuous of Congress and his role as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.

At least nine United States attorneys have been fired. All, except possibly one, for either prosecuting corruption cases that the administration didn't want prosecuted or not bringing election fraud- related cases with insufficient evidence that the administration did want prosecuted.

Secondly, political considerations were used in hiring. Our hearings have shown that, Monica Goodling's testimony, that she may have crossed the line by making political judgments about the suitability of a candidate.

And third, political considerations may have been taken into account regarding a case management example. We had testimony from the lead attorney in the huge tobacco case who stated very clearly she was ordered by main Justice to lower the penalty the government was seeking against tobacco companies.

FEINSTEIN: Political considerations were used in employee evaluations. Example: Brad Schlozman admitted in testimony before the committee that he ordered career staff to change employee evaluations.

One of the U.S. attorneys asked to resign was Todd Graves of Missouri. His replacement -- Brad Schlozman. Brad Schlozman quickly filed a lawsuit against an organization in Missouri that was registering new voters. That organization was called ACORN. ACORN offered to cooperate. There were four small cases. ACORN said they would help. They would fire the people.

Well, the attorney general -- the U.S. attorney was in such a hurry to move before the election on the cases, that they even misstated the name of one of the accused and had to redo the documents later.

Now, why is this important? There are two books. This one book is entitled "Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, Sixth Edition." It dates to January of 1995. An underlined section in this book says, "Thus, most, if not all, investigations of an alleged election crime must await the end of the elections to which the allegation relates."

That's been practiced in the Department of Justice since at least 1982, that we have discovered.

All these rules were weakened or eliminated in a subsequent edition dated May of 2007.

FEINSTEIN: Why? So that the Justice Department could go in before an election, bring election fraud cases and change the entire procedure and practice of this department.
Obfuscation, prevarication and untruths from the leader of this huge and critical department has reached, in my view, a point of no return. Two days ago, I asked a simple question:

How many U.S. attorneys were targeted for firing? The attorney general said he didn't know.

This has been on the front of the burner, so to speak, for seven months now. Does anyone believe the attorney general of the United States, in charge of the department, really doesn't know how many U.S. attorneys were targeted for firing? I don't think so.

On this and so many other issues, this attorney general simply has not been straight with the Judiciary Committee carrying out our constitutional oversight duties, or with the American people. I think the time has come for some answers. I don't think we can accept, "I don't know, I don't recall, well we'll get back to you on that," and then, of course, they don't.

We called again this morning to try to get an answer to that simple question: How many U.S. attorneys were actually targeted? Talked to people who were sitting right behind him at the hearing. "Well, we'll do the best we can" was the answer. That's simply not acceptable.

FEINGOLD: I thank my colleagues.

The attorney general has demonstrated a clear pattern of repeatedly misleading the American public. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the attorney general misled Congress when he said there was not any serious, internal disagreement about the NSA warrantless wiretapping program.

Now, three of the four of us here are members of the Senate Intelligence Committee as well, and I have been briefed on the NSA wiretapping program and other sensitive intelligence programs.

FEINGOLD: I've had the opportunity to review the classified matters at issue here, and I believe that his testimony was misleading, at best. In fact, I am sending a classified letter to the attorney general today outlining my concerns and asking that he clarify his testimony.
And I believe Senator Whitehouse will join me in that as well.

This has gone on long enough. It is time for a special counsel to investigate whether criminal charges should be brought. Congress must not permit anyone, and especially not the attorney general of the United States, to repeatedly mislead us.

Based on what I know, I obviously think that with regard to the Comey-related testimony that he gave, I do believe it was inaccurate. And the fact that both Mr. Negroponte and Mr. Hayden said last year that the March 10, 2004, gang on eight meeting was about the warrantless surveillance program, only further underscores that point.

I've been particularly concerned, having been one of the – the only opponent of the Patriot Act in the Senate when it was voted on -- I've spent years trying to get honest answers whether or not there were abuses under the Patriot Act.

I've been subjected to -- the members of the committee have been subjected to obviously false statements, when the attorney general said he didn't know of any abuses, but we know, for a fact, he knew about those abuses.

This is outrageous. I've been a legislator for 25 years. I agree with Senator Schumer. I have never seen anything like this, from anyone, whether in the state of Wisconsin legislature or here. This is beyond the pale.

I think this effort, by the way, is entirely consistent with the censure resolution on the rule of law that I intend to introduce soon with regard to both the president, who, of course, should fire the attorney general, and with regard to the attorney general himself.

That censure effort is much broader, and involves the president and the attorney general's consistent disrespect for the rule of law in a variety of areas from this NSA program to Guantanamo Bay torture policy.

The disrespect he has shown to Congress as well as the public is all the more reason why Congress should also formally censure him.

But in this particular area, with regard to the attorney general's lack of veracity in his testimony, I think it's appropriate to go further and ask for a special counsel to investigate whether there has been criminal wrongdoing.

FEINGOLD: Censure is a formal judgment of Congress, but it doesn't preclude a formal investigation by a special counsel, it doesn't preclude a court's legal judgment, it doesn't preclude the constitutional proceedings that could follow as well.

So I thank my colleagues. I think this is, again, a sad day, but something that has to happen.

WHITEHOUSE: Well, this has been a long and sorry episode for the Department of Justice, and one of the sorriest aspects of this episode has been the cascade of falsehoods that has fallen out of the Department of Justice during the course of this investigation.

That cascade of falsehoods reached really its culmination yesterday when the statements were made by the attorney general himself and were made under oath and were made under oath to Congress.

I can't see, from what I have been told, how those statements could be true. And I think, from the response that the attorney general received across the committee yesterday, it's clear that there is wide doubt about his veracity, and this raises very significant issues for the Department of Justice and for the country.

The testimony yesterday occupies an interesting space, if you will. It both illustrates the traditions of the Bush administration toward both prevarication and secrecy. It intersects both classified and unclassified material. And it stands across the bounds of two separate committees, the Judiciary and the Intelligence Committee.

Given those circumstances, I very strongly believe that the prudent step to take now is to ask a special counsel who can reach into the classified aspects, who can reach across committee jurisdictions, and who can answer a very simple question: Has the attorney general of the United States lied to Congress?

I think that's a very important question to answer. And I can't speak to the history of congressional testimony, I don't have the length of service of my extremely distinguished colleagues, but I have the greatest admiration for Senator Schumer, for Senator Feinstein and for Senator Feingold.

WHITEHOUSE: And it really impresses me, as a new senator, to see from the three of them the depth of their real horror and concern about what has happened and how this compares to what other administrations have said and done over the years.
So I think this is important work. I think the special counsel is a prudent step, and I'm very honored to be with these three senior senators to support their efforts.

SCHUMER: Questions?

QUESTION: Senator Schumer, is there any indication that any Republicans are on board at this time?

SCHUMER: Well, Senator Specter, you can read his testimony yesterday and we'll have to see. He's on his way back here and we do intend to talk to him about this. He wasn't here this morning.
But I can tell you this from talking to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. People are incredulous about the way the attorney general conducts himself at the hearings.

QUESTION: Because, I mean -- I'm sorry to follow-up, but have you reached out to any Republicans? Have you tried to bring them on board?

SCHUMER: Well, again, we -- not we -- I called Senator Specter this morning, but he was on his way back from Philadelphia. OK.

QUESTION: Are you (inaudible) narrowly focusing on lying to Congress, or it sounds that you were also talking about Monica Goodling's testimony about crossing the lie and (inaudible).

SCHUMER: Yes, if read the letter, it outlines what we are looking at.
Do we have copies of the letter here?
It focuses on -- it focuses on perjury but, obviously, the independent counsel could look at other thing --, special counsel could look at other things. But we focus in our letter on perjury, and we list three of the most glaring, but there are many more.

QUESTION: Senator Schumer, has there ever been, in any testimony that you're aware of, any indication that there was a separate program, that there were separate intelligence activities that were underway that could in any way be construed as a separate program?

SCHUMER: OK. I asked the attorney general this very question yesterday, because he referred specifically -- and I did in my questions to him -- about programs authorized by the president in December, I guess it was, of 2005.

SCHUMER: I said, "Was there just one?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "Only one?"
He said, "Yes."
So even by his testimony, there was just one.

FEINSTEIN: (inaudible) that question.

SCHUMER: Sure.

FEINGOLD (?): I don't think either of us can answer that
question, because of...

FEINSTEIN: Well, I think we should not answer that question.
And I think what's being said is it is very clear that the briefing
given to the big eight was on this specific program.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?Senator Feingold, you said you've been read into the program. You know what Mr. Gonzales referred to. And you said his testimony was misleading at best.It's not a crime to be misleading. You're asking here for an investigation of a potential criminal act. Can you explain if it's misleading -- and, plus, that testimony has been vetted by other lawyers at the committee – at the Justice Department. Why do you think there's grounds for a criminal investigation when what you're
saying is (inaudible)?

FEINGOLD: For the reason Senator Feinstein just indicated. Based on what we know and the evidence about what happened in terms of the gang of eight and what he said in that sworn testimony in the committee, I believe it's perjury.

SCHUMER: This was -- some things he has said have been...

FEINGOLD: Not just misleading -- perjury.

SCHUMER: Some things have been misleading, but if you look at our letter, the three specific points, there's no wiggle room there, OK?

He said there was no dissent. And then when it's established there was just one program, there is no wiggle room.

He said -- well, read the letter. On each of those issues – he said he didn't talk to anybody about the testimony on U.S. attorneys.

And Monica Goodling reported that she was embarrassed by her conversation with him about that subject.

The three instances we outline here, there's no wiggle room. Those are not misleading.

Those are deceiving.

SCHUMER: Those are lying.
(CROSSTALK)

FEINSTEIN: Can I add something to that? His testimony is in direct conflict with Mr. Comey's testimony. So it's very clear the conflict. So the question comes: Who is telling the truth? Both can't be telling the truth.

QUESTION: I have a quick two-parter. One, what if Paul Clement takes a look at your letter and says, "Eh, sorry, I'm not really interested in doing that"? And part two, what if the attorney general attempts to clarify his remarks within that one-week window that Senator Leahy has set forth?

SCHUMER: OK, I'll answer, and then (inaudible).
I think it's very hard. I mean, we all thought about this at some length after yesterday's -- after yesterday's -- two days ago, Tuesday's testimony, and to me the facts are so clear and so contradictory, unless somebody else is lying under oath, that there's no way he can clarify it other than try to wriggle out of it in a deceptive way. And that's been his M.O. previously.

And, again, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. It's not just one instance. If it were one instance, I think every one of us would say, "Give him time to explain. Nobody's perfect. Et cetera." It happens over and over and over again.
I mean, it is not perjury to say, "I don't know who came up with the list of the U.S. attorneys, the seven U.S. attorneys to be fired." It means, in my judgment, that person shouldn't be attorney general. But the standard we're looking at here is a far higher standard. It's basically lying to Congress.

QUESTION: But if Mr. Clement doesn't want to do that, then is Congress talking about bringing back the independent prosecutor law?
(CROSSTALK)

SCHUMER: Well, I spoke with Senator Leahy this morning, and you'll have to talk to him, but it is something he's thinking about.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I understand you can't talk about it (inaudible) he's trying to, if he's trying to kind of parse words...
(CROSSTALK)

FEINSTEIN: Well, we can't comment on that, except to say it is very clear what the purpose of the meeting was.

FEINSTEIN: It's clear from the testimony of Senator Rockefeller, Congresswoman Harman, the letter of Negroponte -- very clear.

SCHUMER: And let me just say one other thing. Again, the question I asked him Tuesday -- because he didn't say programs. He said, "The program authorized by the president in December 2005 -- five -- in December of 2005." I said, "Is there only one program?"
"Yes."
So maybe there were other programs out there, but we were specific about this program, and that's the question he answered because he explicitly said it. So whether there were other programs out there or not, it's clear that there was only one program authorized by the president, and that's what our letter is about.

QUESTION: It could've been the same program, just pared down in March '04.

SCHUMER: No. OK, again...

WHITEHOUSE: That's what the special counsel would sort out in a thoughtful, determined, logical way with access both to...
(CROSSTALK)

SCHUMER: There was one program authorized by the president, not one program and a pared down program, which would make two. There was one.

QUESTION: As far as disclosed and authorized.

SCHUMER: Authorized is the word. It's a better operative.

QUESTION: This is a broader question. A couple of you mentioned (inaudible). Does any of you have an opinion or you've given any thought to where he tanks in the tree of attorney generals in this country?

SCHUMER: He's not good. He's clearly the worst one since I've been here, far and away. Far and away. And that's not just on grounds of telling the truth. It's on running the department. When he can say, "I don't know" about major things in the department, such as Senator Feinstein brought out, he does not deserve to be attorney general.
And I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to say that there are probably only two people who think he should remain as attorney general: the president and Attorney General Gonzales.

FEINSTEIN: See, I think -- wait one second, Chuck.
I think things have reached a point of extraordinary sensitivity with respect to his testimony because he just doesn't tell the truth.

FEINSTEIN: And this has become so grating.And virtually anything that happens in the department now, he can't recall it; he didn't know about it. And yet, it seems to me that when you change major policies in a department, they ought to be signed off and approved by the main leader.

The effect that it's having is what really bothers me. You've had virtually the entire head staff resign. You have a department whose credibility is generally at risk and deteriorating every day.

And these are the big -- for U.S. attorneys, these are the big prosecutions that our nation makes in major crime and major civil action in this country.

If you can't trust that a United States attorney is doing things on the basis of law and fairness and justice, but that might be politically manipulated from main Justice, that's really a problem.

SCHUMER: Thank you, everybody.