And Gonzales answered: "Prior to the public release of the Inspector General’s report on March 9,2007, the Office of the Inspector General provided drafts of the report for classification and factual review. Upon learning of the findings contained in the draft report, the Attorney General was concerned, promptly ordered a detailed review of report’s findings and recommendations, and directed senior Department officials, including officials at the FBI, to address the shortcomings identified by the Inspector General’s report."

So a jury of his peers might interpret Gonzales to be saying that when he saw the drafts of the 2007 IG report on NSL abuses, he learned for the first time of these abuses, and grew concerned, and demanded actions to correct them.

So what's the problem?

The Post piece and database makes plain that Gonzales was directly informed of NSL abuses ten times before the March 2007 IG report on NSL abuses. He was informed of the first one as early as February 10, 2005 -- two years before the IG report. His answer to the committee could not be more misleading.

Leahy responds in his posted comment, "Each day seems to bring with it another example of this Administration’s troubling pattern of misleading or stonewalling Congress and the public. The reports today that the Attorney General misled Congress regarding violations of Americans’ privacy and civil liberties by his department are deeply disturbing and warrant further inquiry."