Some of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ testimony before Congress has seemed contradictory and misleading. But perjury charges, which some Senate Democrats want filed against Gonzales, likely would be difficult to prove. What is clear is that Gonzales has little support on Capitol Hill, including among Republicans. “I do not find your testimony credible, candidly,” Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., told Gonzales during hearings Tuesday. But Gonzales still has the support of the person who matters most to keeping his job: President Bush. Specter said that Bush was sticking by Gonzales out of personal loyalty — regardless of what Congress or the public thinks.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
34 Comments
One thing to remember is the courtesy given to witnesses appearing before Congressional committees which is the opportunity to review a transcript of the oral testimony and then provide written corrections, modifications, clarifications, etc., thereto within a “reasonable time”. Doing so, or notifying the committee in writing that the witness stands by the testimony then closes the record. I suggest that until the record is closed, there cannot be any contemplation of perjury charges. I also suggest that a statement made through a DOJ spokesperson that the AG stands by his testimony isn’t definitive for this purpose.
Good point VT. But Gonzo better make any clarifications soon. And maybe he needs to ask what ‘is’ is.
Hey, perjury is lying under oath. He’s a Bush guy. He spoke under oath. Case closed. Easy charge, easy conviction.
With that leaked transcript of the SIC briefing about the Patriot Act, I think congress already has evidence in hand if Gonzo. doesn’t retract his statement.
When are the democrats going to go after some meaningful legislation? If they go after this red herring what will they have accomplished? They are stuck in a rut and the world around them is caving is. Look at their ratings. The demos want to impeach Bush because of Iraq and what they think is a lack of confidence in him as pointed out by his low ratings. Look at their own ratings.Shouldn’t we start recalls against the whole bunch. What idiots from both parties are we sending to Washington. I say send the whole bunch home and get a new crop.
With the obstructionist Repubs., blocking any meaningful legislation, there is still little that the dem. congress can accomplish. America passed a chance for real reform by not voting out more of the repub. rubber stampers in 06, hopefully that will get corrected in 08!
The latest round of finger pointing and “he said – she said” trials.
Stating perjury was committed and proving the elements are entirely two different things.
With the hodge-podge of information the Democrats have, there may be a long and fruitless road for them to travel.
How about doing some legislative work Dems?
Anyone else feel it’s 1974?
Gonzos testimony was so full of bull, all he does is defend, deflect and deny.
Typical Bushie. God you republicans are horrible!
Interesting comment Vaughn Tolle…
Although there are some comparable events that are similar, there may be more Public interactivity now because of the way our Communications processes have advanced.
I’m unsure if this instantaneous news is better or worse. On one hand we can get massive amount of information immediately.
On the other hand, there is so much information that focusing on the “problems” may be akin to cramming for a final exam where critical thinking is left hanging on threadbare stands of emotional discourse rather than logical exchange.
Hmmm, I hear some politicians of all people, saying very forcefully, “He told us half truths and misleading statements.” Could be true you know, but when the pot calls the kettle black, you have to wonder why. I am convinced these guys are rabid anti-Hispanic. Now will somebody please go read transcripts from these guys election campaigns and COUNT HOW MANY half truths and misleading statements they made. Oh yeah, they weren’t under oath, that will make it okie-dokie when it happens again next election cycle. Barf.And you have to keep it all in perspective. If he did tell a half truth, he is still allowed to hire attorney’s in a partisan fashion like the dems always did as long as it isn’t overt partisanship, and it wasn’t or the case would be closed. So this potential half-perjure has no legs, it can’t go anywhere other than “Yeah, I hired our guys to do the job better, watcha gonna do about it? The next election is behind us already”.I see Mr. Gonzales is being the polite professional through all of this, tolerating with amazing restraint these nipping, yipping, chiahuahuas. I am immensly impressed with the guy.
Imagine, a politician telling a half truth or giving a a misleading statement. Hmmm.
Juan you are introducing the voice of reason and you have to have a reasonable audience before you can do this. I guess if they are busy going after the AG they aren’t doing as much damage somewhere else.
I’ll betcha all the coins and chalk in my pocket “Juan Valdez” is another fake nym for one of the usual suspects in this forum.
I just watched the rerun of last night’s “Daily Show.” The “Moment of Zen” was Gonzo telling the Senate panel, “I corrected my misstatements to a reporter.” The Senator asked, “Which reporter did you talk to?” Gonzo said, “Well, *I* didn’t talk to the reporter.” The Senator said, “Okay then, what did your representative tell the reporter?” Gonzo relpied, “I don’t know.”
Yesterday’s hearings were comic tragedy. He said some of the outsted US attorneys *could* have been fired for “inappropriate behavior with staff, cronyism and/or conflicts of interest. A Senator asked, “Were any of the fired USA’s accused of such things?” Gonzo said, “No.”
Gonzo is on the record as saying there were no other domestic spying programs. But yesterday he said the Ashcroft hospital bed incident involved “other domestic spying programs.”
Jon Lovitz was a better liar!
The only-est reason Gonzo is still in Washington is because Shrub thinks AGAG is dumber than he. And George WMD Bush just might be right.
You know about Shrub’s nicknames for people? His nick for Alberto Gonzalez is “Fredo,” after the dumb brother in “The Godfather.” Eventually, they took Fredo out on the lake and offed him. Count on Bush Family Justice in this case, too.
No one in their right mind (which, sadly, excludes “Kahnsas” or “ksgrm” or “Nathan,” et al) could possibly see yesterday’s hearing and think Gonzo’s anything but a liar, or fool, or both.
Kind of cute, though, to see “Juan Valdez” play the Race Card.
So everyone else was lying about the wiretapping program but Gonzo was telling the truth. And apparently Monica Goodling was also lying under oath.
If Gonzo was telling the truth then he wouldn’t have to avoid or refuse giving answers nor would he have to go off on irrelevant tangents rather than answer straightforward questions.
What does Sam Brownback have to say about this:
“By his words and deeds he chose to place himself above the law. By his words and deeds he has undermined the rule of law in America to the great harm of this nation. By his own words and deeds, he has undermined the truth-finding function of the judiciary, at great harm to that branch of our government. By his words and deeds, he had done great harm to the notions of honesty and integrity that form the underpinnings of this great republic.”
“We have lost many things over the past few months: trust in public officials, respect for the rule of law, confidence in the truth of the White House’s public statements. But perhaps the most tragic loss has been the steady erosion of our societal standards.”
But that was about Clinton so let’s see if there is the usual conservative double standard.
“Doug” –
I love the Sam Brownback quote so much I must repeat it:
“By his words and deeds he chose to place himself above the law. By his words and deeds he has undermined the rule of law in America to the great harm of this nation. By his own words and deeds, he has undermined the truth-finding function of the judiciary, at great harm to that branch of our government. By his words and deeds, he had done great harm to the notions of honesty and integrity that form the underpinnings of this great republic.”
“We have lost many things over the past few months: trust in public officials, respect for the rule of law, confidence in the truth of the White House’s public statements. But perhaps the most tragic loss has been the steady erosion of our societal standards.”
George WMD Bush hasn’t just destroyed the Republic Party’s future prospects, his administration has effectively ruined conservatism. There was a time — long, long ago — when conservatives actually contributed to public policy. Maybe it was too early in 1948 for Harry Truman to impliment National Health Insurance; and maybe the conservatives were correct in their opposition to in in 1948; but it’s been 59 years and the time as come.
Maybe all those conservatives who used to be part of the Democratic “Solid South” and later switched to the Republic Party (i.e., Strom Thurmond, Phil Gramm, et al) had a legitimate case for States’ Rights when they voted against the Civil Rights Act. Maybe. But they were too clearly and accurately identified as racists at the time. And even their most respected spokeman, Barry Goldwater, was attacked by “conservatives” as being “too liberal” late in his life. Barry Goldwater!
Republic Party faithful sat on their hands and didn’t elect Bob Dole and prevent Bill Clinton’s second term. Why? Because “Bob Dole [was] *too liberal!*” Bob Dole!
The Limbaughtomized Masses and people who actually think the Faux Noise Channel is “news” have turned the GOP into the party of lemmings. They’re rushing toward herd extinction thanks to the “leadership” of George WMD Bush.
Except, look who’s not jumping into the sea. Gonzo will go before Shrub gets justice. Which won’t be too soon.
It is time for the dems to introduce the ‘nuclear’ solution to the stalemates the repub. are making. This time the public would whole heartedly support it. They telegraphed a message to congress in 06 they want change, not obstruction to change.
Brownback is part of the judiciary committee so I mailed him a letter today to ask if he plans on being consistent with impeaching people on perjury charges. I suggest more people do the same.
Sam Brownback’s Office245 N. WacoSuite 240Wichita, KS 67202
“No one in their right mind (which, sadly, excludes “Kahnsas” or “ksgrm” or “Nathan,” et al) could possibly see yesterday’s hearing and think Gonzo’s anything but a liar, or fool, or both.”
Without taking a position on the substance of this mess (don’t have enough info, as I suspect most of you don’t either), LTP, are you saying that reasonable people of good conscience CANNOT disagree with you here? that if persons disagree with your position, they are per se NOT reasonable people of good conscience?
Why would you conclude such a thing? More important, if you conclude so, how do you ever expect to acomplish the compromise necessary to govern?
Y’know, “Phantom,” –
That’d be fun. Imagine television spots replaying Trent Lott and all the Republic’s weeping crocodile tears because of “obstructionist” Democrats!
Wouldn’t matter, though. As the recent Iraq vote indicated, the Republics are shameless. They’ll play to the cameras with self-righteous indignation but they’ll vote according to type. (The only Senators who voted against the so-called “party line” were Democrats and Republics who’re facing re-election in 2008.)
For whatever purpose the fillibuster rule might have served this nation’s history, the people are much more aware of issues and consider the government to be representative of their wishes. The arcane rules of that Club of 100 that is the United States Senate, and however the Constitution has turned out to skew way more power to gophers and prairie dogs in square states instead to real live people who live and pay taxes and votes in America, this democratic-republic will live or die only on the basis of representing the people.
Lincoln spoke of *government.* Not a bunch of Libertarian fantasists doing whatver they want; *government!*
Of, and by, and for the *people.* Not of and by and for the corporations. The *people!*
The *people* have already lost so much. We may never get it back.
I live in Kansas and understand my opinions are in the minority. I think it’s nobody’s business if two people want to marry, regardless of their genders. I think a medical procedure should be a private issue between a woman and her doctor; that the government’s got no business intruding into that relationship and therapy. I think people who can afford to pay more for the commonwealth should be taxed higher than the poorest of the poor.
I’m in Kansan. I’m in the minority. I can live with that. It means I’ll have to work harder to convince my fellow Kansans or my fellow Kansans will be so right they convince me to reconsider my opinions.
What I see in Kansas today is a formerly respectable conservative party (think Nancy Kassebaum, Jim Pearson, Bob Dole) that’s lost its moral compass.
There’s nothing “conservative” about government-imposed abortion prohibition. There’s nothing “conservative” about denying the truth of evolution. There’s nothing “conservative” about lying to the United States Senate, declaring unilateral war halfway across the world, or claiming human beings don’t contribute to global warming.
I used to like conservatives. I disagreed with them a lot, but we could discuss the merits of an issue. Then, desperate “conservatives” started getting elected my name-calling and conjuring up fake wedge issues.
Sounded like a personal victory to me. But the “conservatives” succeeded in electing the dumbest president in the history of the republic. And they’ve convinced themselves they’re still “conservative.”
They’re not, you know.
GMC, seriously? You’re going to sit here and defend this nonsense?
Not even I would try to double talk Clinton’s definition of the word ‘is”. It was bullshit. And you should call it as it is too.
Just as your opinion lowered of me yesterday for being gleeful about the demise of people who support this kind of crap, my opinion of you lowered for being one of them.
I love how the Repukes wnet after Clinton for his ‘issues’ but now whine like little babies when the favor is returned. Payback’s a bitch ain’t it!
Considering the money, time spent investigating clinton, one can only laugh at the repubs. crying for congress to do something else rather than pursue their lying members of govt.
P-mom:
You didn’t read carefully. Let me post it again:
“Without taking a position on the substance of this mess (don’t have enough info, as I suspect most of you don’t either), LTP, are you saying that reasonable people of good conscience CANNOT disagree with you here? that if persons disagree with your position, they are per se NOT reasonable people of good conscience?”
Note – “WITHOUT TAKING A POSITION ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS MESS”
I’m not defending either side here. My concern is, again, the dismissal out of hand of anyone who may disagree as per se unreasonable.
I thought the action against Clinton was ill advised Ben. I even wrote letters, one to President Clinton and one to House Investigation Committee.
I felt a simple censure statement should have been enough and then move on.
White house asserts mueller did not contradict gonzo., how so?In his own sworn testimony Thursday, Mueller contradicted his boss, saying under questioning that the terrorist surveillance program (TSP) was the topic of the hospital room dispute between top Bush administration officials.
Mueller was not in the hospital room at the time of the dramatic March 10, 2004, confrontation between Ashcroft and presidential advisers Andy Card and Gonzales, who was then serving as White House counsel. Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee he arrived shortly after they left, and then spoke with the ailing Ashcroft.
I can see mueller hitting the unemp. line soon.
GMC, wouldn’t it appear the WH is being ‘unreasonable’ per above posting?
Specter said that Bush was sticking by Gonzales out of personal loyalty — regardless of what Congress or the public thinks.Posted by Phillip BrownleeI suspect it is alot more than personal loyalty, bush is trying to keep his crumblin house of cards intact, he may have to end up pardoning himself along with his aides and members of his admin., before it’s all over.
GMC, I don;t know if you’ve watched any of the hearings, but AGAG is really something.
If he is not lying and deceiving, he is stunningly incompetent. Diane Feinstein asked him how many US attorneys had been fired, in total. His answer: “I can’t answer that, I would have to look it up for you.”
There are so many other examples of him claiming not to know what is happening in his own department.
Anyone who cares about how this country is run should look up videos of AGAG’s testimony for yourselves and discover what an “embarrassment” he is (term used by Joe Scarborough this morning on MSNBC).
On the US Attorneys’ firings, there were issues of voter disenfranchisement affecting Congressional elections, and bribery of Congressmen, being investigated by US Attorneys. For these causes, the Congress has the power to investigate actions in the White House and Justice Department. If Congress doesn’t have the power, then it means the Executive Branch has the power to secretly influence Congressional election results.
Frankly, Congress has the power to convert US Attorneys from political appointees serving at the pleasure of the President, to civil servants protected under statutorily-prescribed job-performance measures.
The Congress has the power to define Attorney Generals’ scope of power. The DOJ was created by Congress. If the Congress creates an agency, and funds it, but cannot examine what the agency is doing, in order to regulate its own creation in an informed manner, this is a travesty of the Constitution.
It probably should be taken out of the Pres. (kings) control, to avoid the cronyism and manipulation of the justice system. The integrity of the dept. should be preserved above all else.
Wow.
So now we have the head of the FBI, under oath, calling the Attorney General a liar.
Wow.
Folks, the issues on the table go way beyond Republican versus Democrat, Spy vs. Spy. They go to checks and balances, and the Constitution itself.
We have a situation here. Big time. I think if the President is not willing to do the right thing on this and other matter, impeachment absolutely needs to be back on the table.
Assumption by News Story is an unwise thing.
Phantom:
Perhaps, but that was not the issue.
And “stunning incompetence,” as delsol put it, would not be unusual for this administration, or frankly, for the federal government in general.
Well, Kansas, why don;t you go watch the hearings on the media outlet of choice like many of the rest of us have? The guy perjured himself…actually several times, but this one was the one where there were multiple witnesses and actual documentation.
This would all be moot if Bush would have let AG AG go, but he has not for several reasons:1. They will have a hard time finding someone else who will cede all of their authority to the administration and, in particular, David Addington. AG AG has clearly “delegated” much of his authority elsewhere, and that’s part of what started this whole mess–someone else, as yet unnamed because of stonewalling, was responsible for firing those attorneys.
2. Replacing AG AG means a confirmation battle Bush just doesn;t want right now.
Go look for yourself, though–Tony Snow’s denial that there were contradictions between AGAG and Mueller are blatant lies themselves, easily proven by viewing the testimony YOURSELF.
Do it, then let’s see what you have to say about this.