Gonzales prepares for congressional testimony

[danarhea]

Gonzales is nowhere to be seen these days, as he is spending a lot of time prepping for his appearance on the stand.

The notable thing in all of this is how quiet the White House is on the subject. It wasn't long ago that Bush was screaming executive privilege, and that administration figures would not answer to Congress. So what changed in the meantime? Nothing did. The administration is still accountable to Congress, no matter how much hot air is blown to the contrary. I think Bush knows that, so his bluster could be interpreted as catering to the 29% of his supporters that are left, while hoping not to lose any more them.

Later this month, we will see Gonzales on the stand, dodging and weaving, as he attempts to deal with the perjury he committed not so long ago. Bring your popcorn, as this will be an interesting circus.

Article is here.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Gonzales is nowhere to be seen these days, as he is spending a lot of time prepping for his appearance on the stand.

The notable thing in all of this is how quiet the White House is on the subject. It wasn't long ago that Bush was screaming executive privilege, and that administration figures would not answer to Congress. So what changed in the meantime? Nothing did. The administration is still accountable to Congress, no matter how much hot air is blown to the contrary. I think Bush knows that, so his bluster could be interpreted as catering to the 29% of his supporters that are left, while hoping not to lose any more them.

Later this month, we will see Gonzales on the stand, dodging and weaving, as he attempts to deal with the perjury he committed not so long ago. Bring your popcorn, as this will be an interesting circus.

Article is here.

Gonzalez never committed perjury you're FOS, if the President caves on this stick a fork in him he's done I'll never defend the guy again. And the President does not answer to the Congress in this instance, infact the Congress has absolutely 0 say in the matter.

 

[aps]

Yeah, we'll see him with that stupid smirk on his face--the same one he had while lying to the public claiming he saw no memos and was not part of the deliberative process. First, we know that was false. Second, even if conceded that such statement was true, then that would mean he was grossly negligent in his job as Attorney General. Tell me what Attorney General doesn't participate in making decisions about US Attorneys?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Yeah, we'll see him with that stupid smirk on his face--the same one he had while lying to the public claiming he saw no memos and was not part of the deliberative process. First, we know that was false. Second, even if conceded that such statement was true, then that would mean he was grossly negligent in his job as Attorney General. Tell me what Attorney General doesn't participate in making decisions about US Attorneys?

Finding him guilty before he testifies - duly noted. Tell us what is illegal about his smirk, aps?

 

[aps]

Finding him guilty before he testifies - duly noted. Tell us what is illegal about his smirk, aps?

When did I say his smirk was illegal? I find smirks rather repulsive when I believe someone is lying through their teeth.

As to finding him guilty--so I have concluded he lied--so what? He has made statements to the public which are contradictory. Therefore, it's not like my conclusion is unfounded. I am willing to listen to his testimony before Congress and change my mind if the facts warrant such.

Overall, I never have a problem with changing my mind when my assessment of the facts warrant that change.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

As to finding him guilty--so I have concluded he lied--so what?

Remind me never to have you on my jury.

 

[aps]

Remind me never to have you on my jury.

Ha ha ha ha If I thought you were guilty, I would freely admit it when asked by your attorney during jury selection, although I would love to sit in on a trial. Virginia puts their potential jurors "on call" for something like 6 weeks. I had to call in to see if I had to show up to the courthouse. I got into the jury box in two, different cases but was booted before they could ask me any questions (called a preemptory strike), which I assume was based on my occupation.

My husband was called to jury duty for one of the larger terrorism cases (and I believe the defendant was found guilty). He had to answer a humongous questionaire before even showing up. He was not selected to sit on the jury.

 

[tryreading]

Gonzalez never committed perjury you're FOS, if the President caves on this stick a fork in him he's done I'll never defend the guy again. And the President does not answer to the Congress in this instance, infact the Congress has absolutely 0 say in the matter.

The President has already distanced himself from Gonzales to an extent. He used the usual phrases, like 'mistakes were made,' and he was 'not happy' about the confusion from a practice that has been customary for previous Presidents. And 'Al has got work to do up there' before Congress. None of this indicates Gonzales will be fired, but I think the White House will be relieved when Gonzales offers his 'resignation.'

I think Gonzales is gone. And the President is not going to back him 100%. Just my opinion. But if this happens and you don't defend him again because of it, you'll be a man of your word.

The President doesn't answer to the Congress for this, but when the relevant questions are asked, and if there appear to be questional tactics involved in the firings, Gonzales will be history because of that and the Congress will have gotten its way regardless of the President's priviliges.

 

[TheNextEra]

Remind me never to have you on my jury.

Has Kerry been put on trial for being a traitor? Yet, how many conservatives here have automatically found him guilty of being a traitor?

 

[Gibberish]

Has Kerry been put on trial for being a traitor? Yet, how many conservatives here have automatically found him guilty of being a traitor?

Don't forget Clinton was also convicted for perjury to many conservatives. :roll:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The President has already distanced himself from Gonzales to an extent. He used the usual phrases, like 'mistakes were made,' and he was 'not happy' about the confusion from a practice that has been customary for previous Presidents. And 'Al has got work to do up there' before Congress. None of this indicates Gonzales will be fired, but I think the White House will be relieved when Gonzales offers his 'resignation.'

I think Gonzales is gone. And the President is not going to back him 100%. Just my opinion. But if this happens and you don't defend him again because of it, you'll be a man of your word.

The President doesn't answer to the Congress for this, but when the relevant questions are asked, and if there appear to be questional tactics involved in the firings, Gonzales will be history because of that and the Congress will have gotten its way regardless of the President's priviliges.

Gonzalez is an incompetent idiot and that's why he should be fired, he should have never tried to offer an explanation in the first place he should have said that we fired them because it was tuesday and been done with it. But if you think that having Gonzalez fired is what they want you're sadly mistaken they want him, Rove, and Mierrs on the stand to set up perjury traps and create a crime where there was none, that is why the President needs to stand his ground.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Don't forget Clinton was also convicted for perjury to many conservatives. :roll:

Umm that's because he was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice and had his license to practice law revoked and fined a sizable amount.

 

[Gibberish]

Umm that's because he was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice and had his license to practice law revoked and fined a sizable amount.

Please show me where Clinton was convicted.

CNN seems to report Clinton left office without criminal charges, his license was revoked for 5 days, and he paid $25,000 in fines.
CNN.com - Clinton admits misleading testimony, avoids charges in Lewinsky probe - January 19, 2001

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Please show me where Clinton was convicted.

CNN seems to report Clinton left office without criminal charges, his license was revoked for 5 days, and he paid $25,000 in fines.
CNN.com - Clinton admits misleading testimony, avoids charges in Lewinsky probe - January 19, 2001

His license was actually revoked for 5 years but that was only the first time, the SCOTUS disbarred him permanently in Arkansas:

Clinton Disbarred by Supreme Court

He was also fined $90,000:

Clinton ordered to pay more than $90,000 for contempt in Jones case


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]July 29, 1999
Web posted at: 2:00 p.m. EDT (1800 GMT)[/FONT]

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, July 29) -- A federal judge has ordered President Bill Clinton to pay $90,686 for giving false testimony in the civil sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by Paula Jones.

Clinton ordered to pay more than $90,000 for contempt in Jones case - July 29, 1999

 

[Gibberish]

His license was actually revoked for 5 years but that was only the first time, the SCOTUS disbarred him permanently in Arkansas:

Clinton Disbarred by Supreme Court

He was also fined $90,000:

Ok. So where does it say he was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Ok. So where does it say he was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice?

A federal judge has ordered President Bill Clinton to pay $90,686 for giving false testimony

 

[danarhea]

Ok. So where does it say he was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice?

With all due respect, you cannot be bashing Gonzales' perjury, yet support Clinton's. Clinton DID lie under oath, just as Gonzales did.

 

[Gibberish]

With all due respect, you cannot be bashing Gonzales' perjury, yet support Clinton's. Clinton DID lie under oath, just as Gonzales did.

I'm not. They are both liars. Many on the right like to attack Clinton's perjury yet support Gonzales, it's hypocrisy all around.

 

[Gibberish]

A federal judge has ordered President Bill Clinton to pay $90,686 for giving false testimony

Not for being convicted but for being in contempt of court. Two very different things.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

With all due respect, you cannot be bashing Gonzales' perjury, yet support Clinton's. Clinton DID lie under oath, just as Gonzales did.

When did Gonzales commit perjury?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Not for being convicted but for being in contempt of court. Two very different things.

His contempt of court was for giving false testimony under oath, IE perjury it is the exact same thing.

 

[danarhea]

I'm not. They are both liars. Many on the right like to attack Clinton's perjury yet support Gonzales, it's hypocrisy all around.

On that note, I will chalk up the "Clinton did it" entries to CPE*. If a Democrat stuck his head in a bucket of manure, they would do it too. Nice to know that they are their own men. Hehe.


* Clinton Penis Envy

 

[Gibberish]

His contempt of court was for giving false testimony under oath, IE perjury it is the exact same thing.

I never said giving false testimony didn't equal perjury. I said contempt of court doesn't equal conviction.

This is a pointless argument as I think we both know Clinton obviously lied. Gonzales also lied to the judiciary committee. I doubt he will be convicted as such though, they same way Clinton never was. It is also pointless to pursue Gonazles on this matter UNLESS it is proven Gonzales had the attorney's removed specifically so that they could not pursue Republican corruption they were all investigating.

Clinton and Gonzales are being used in the same way in this pathetic political war between Republicans and Democrats.

 

[danarhea]

When did Gonzales commit perjury?

On January 6, 2005, under oath, before the Senate Judiciary Committee (transcript is as follows):

Sen. Feingold: And I also would like you to answer this: does the president, in your opinion, have the authority acting as commander in chief to authorize warrantless searches of Americans' homes and wiretaps of their conversations in violation of the criminal and foreign intelligence surveillance statutes of this country?
MR. GONZALES: Senator, the August 30th memo has been withdrawn. It has been rejected, including that section regarding the commander in chief authority to ignore the criminal statutes. So it's been rejected by the executive branch. I categorically reject it. And in addition to that, as I've said repeatedly today, this administration does not engage in torture and will not condone torture. And so, what you really are -- what we're really discussing is a hypothetical situation that --
SEN. FEINGOLD: I -- Judge Gonzales, let me ask a broader question. I'm asking you whether in general the president has the constitutional authority, does he at least in theory have the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law under duly enacted statutes simply because he's commander in chief? Does he -- does he have that power?
MR. GONZALES: Senator, I -- you -- in my judgment, you phrase it sort of a hypothetical situation. I would have to know what -- what is the -- what is the national interest that the president may have to consider. What I'm saying is, it is impossible to me, based upon the question as you've presented it to me, to answer that question. I can say, is that there is a presumption of constitutionality with respect to any statute passed by Congress. I will take an oath to defend the statutes. And to the extent that there is a decision made to ignore a statute, I consider that a very significant decision, and one that I would personally be involved with, I commit to you on that, and one we will take with a great deal of care and seriousness.
SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, that sounds to me like the president still remains above the law.
MR. GONZALES: No, sir.
SEN. FEINGOLD: Again, you know, if this is something where -- where it -- you take a good look at it, you give a presumption that the president ought to follow the law, that -- you know, that's -- to me, that's not good enough under our system of government.
MR. GONZALES: Senator, if I might respond to that, the president is not above the law. Of course he's not above the law. But he has an obligation, too. He takes an oath as well. And if Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, there is a practice and a tradition recognized by presidents of both parties that he may elect to decide not to enforce that law. Now, I think that that would be --
SEN. FEINGOLD: I recognize that, and I tried to make that distinction, Judge, between electing not to enforce as opposed to affirmatively telling people they can do certain things in contravention of the law.
MR. GONZALES: Senator, this president is not -- I -- it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.
SEN. FEINGOLD: Finally, will you commit to notify Congress if the president makes this type of decision and not wait two years until a memo is leaked about it?
MR. GONZALES: I will to advise the Congress as soon as I reasonably can, yes, sir.
SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, I hope that would be a very brief period of time. And I thank you, again, Judge Gonzales.
MR. GONZALES: Thank you, Senator.
​

Gonzales' complete testimony is available on lexis.com.

Fact is that Bush had already begun warrantless wiretapping, and Gonzales was Bush's legal adviser on that. Gonzales told a flat out lie, and told it under oath. That is perjury.
​

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

On January 6, 2005, under oath, before the Senate Judiciary Committee (transcript is as follows):



Gonzales' complete testimony is available on lexis.com.

Fact is that Bush had already begun warrantless wiretapping, and Gonzales was Bush's legal adviser on that. Gonzales told a flat out lie, and told it under oath. That is perjury.
[/indent]

Umm no it's not Gonzalez was not allowed to disclose classified information in an open session of Congress not to mention that the President didn't violate FISA in the first place.