Word games at the WaPo

Power Line:

Dan Eggen of the Washington Post churns out another misleading hit-piece on Alberto Gonzales. This time, he claims that the notes of FBI Director Robert Mueller contradict Gonzales' account of his famous visit to Attorney General Ashcroft at the hospital in March 2004. Eggen begins:

Then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft was "feeble," "barely articulate" and "stressed" moments after a hospital room confrontation in March 2004 with Alberto R. Gonzales, who wanted Ashcroft to approve a warrantless wiretapping program over Justice Department objections, according to notes from FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III that were released yesterday. . . .

Mueller's description of Ashcroft's physical condition that night contrasts with testimony last month from Gonzales, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Ashcroft was "lucid" and "did most of the talking" during the brief visit. It also confirms an account of the episode by former deputy attorney general James B. Comey, who said Ashcroft told the two men he was not well enough to make decisions in the hospital

But here Eggen omits an important detail -- Mueller wasn't at the hospital during Gonzales' conversation with Ashcroft (the reader must turn to page 5 of the print edition to learn this). Thus, Mueller was not in a position to opine about Ashcroft's ability to articulate while Gonzales was present. And since Gonzales (naturally enough) has said nothing about Ashcroft's state after Gonzales left the hospital, Mueller's statements on this subject can't and don't contradict anything Gonzales has said.

Eggen, then, is simply fabricating a contradiction (he uses the word "contrast" instead of "contradict," but they mean the same thing and the Post's headline uses the latter word). Mueller does not (and could not, because he wasn't present) deny that Ashcroft was lucid during the visit or that Ashcroft did most of the talking. Moreover, Comey himself has confirmed that Ashcroft did, in fact, speak coherently about the issue Gonzales came to discuss, becoming too exhausted to continue only after he had said his piece. And Gonzales hasn't claimed that Ashcroft expressed the ability or willingness to make a decision on whether to continue the surveillance program at issue. Thus, even if Mueller could confirm what Ashcroft told Gonzales on the subject (which he cannot, because he wasn't present) this would not contradict anything Gonzales has said.

...

What makes this bad case of gotcha even worse is that Ashcroft recovered from his illness and went on to continue to serve as Attorney General until he was replaced by Gonzales. He is not deceased. He is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. Evidently he has declined to do so and the reporters are implying something from his refusal to speak with them that is probably no warranted.

They have overblown the significance of the dispute because they have overblown the Democrats' bogus attempts to attack the Attorney General. It is not surprising that former AG Ashcroft would not want to play that game. You should also remember that what this was about was a vigorous dispute among lawyers about the meaning of the law. If that were a crime there would be a lot of lawyers in jail.