Dems' sets are growing bigger and bigger

[RightIsWrong]

I saw a glimpse of the exchange on this on Headline News with the delicious Sophia Choi anchoring the story.

Feingold flat out told Gonzales that he believed that he lied to Congress to save any chance he had of being confirmed. That he put his confirmation ahead of the truth.

I can't find video....but below is a WaPo article about Feingold letting Gonzales know to expect to hear about it.

Gonzales Is Challenged on Wiretaps
Feingold Says Attorney General Misled Senators in Hearings

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 31, 2006; Page A07

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) charged yesterday that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales misled the Senate during his confirmation hearing a year ago when he appeared to try to avoid answering a question about whether the president could authorize warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

In a letter to the attorney general yesterday, Feingold demanded to know why Gonzales dismissed the senator's question about warrantless eavesdropping as a "hypothetical situation" during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January 2005. At the hearing, Feingold asked Gonzales where the president's authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.

Gonzales said that it was impossible to answer such a hypothetical question but that it was "not the policy or the agenda of this president" to authorize actions that conflict with existing law. He added that he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance, according to a transcript of the hearing.

In fact, the president did secretly authorize the National Security Agency to begin warrantless monitoring of calls and e-mails between the United States and other nations soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The program, publicly revealed in media reports last month, was unknown to Feingold and his staff at the time Feingold questioned Gonzales, according to a staff member. Feingold's aides developed the 2005 questions based on privacy advocates' concerns about broad interpretations of executive power.

Gonzales was White House counsel at the time the program began and has since acknowledged his role in affirming the president's authority to launch the surveillance effort. Gonzales is scheduled to testify Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the program's legal rationale.

"It now appears that the Attorney General was not being straight with the Judiciary Committee and he has some explaining to do," Feingold said in a statement yesterday.

A Justice Department spokesman said yesterday the department had not yet reviewed the Feingold letter and could not comment.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Gonzales sat there and lied his ass off today. Even Arlen Specter knew he was FOS.

My question is:

Why in the f'in world wasn't he under oath?

 

[Genx87]

Ants around the world are in jealously at the size of the dems gonads.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Gonzales sat there and lied his ass off today. Even Arlen Specter knew he was FOS.

My question is:

Why in the f'in world wasn't he under oath?

So even now if he is caught lying he cannot be tried for purjury?

what kind of crap is that?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Topic Title: Dems' sets are growing bigger and bigger

Bout damn time. :thumbsup:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Ants around the world are in jealously at the size of the dems gonads.

Even so, she has a point. Gonzales did exactly what he said he would not. Not surprising to me, however that the scenario proposed was so close to what happened is.

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Gonzales sat there and lied his ass off today. Even Arlen Specter knew he was FOS.

My question is:

Why in the f'in world wasn't he under oath?

So even now if he is caught lying he cannot be tried for purjury?

what kind of crap is that?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but he could still be tried for purjury couldn't he? He wasn't under oath today but I'm sure he was for his confirmation hearing which is where Feingold is saying he lied. Obviously he spewed out a bunch of BS today as well, but during his confirmation hearings he clearly lied.

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Gonzales sat there and lied his ass off today. Even Arlen Specter knew he was FOS.

My question is:

Why in the f'in world wasn't he under oath?

I can't think of one reason, it's not like it takes a lot of time. They refer to him as a witness, so why not have the witness under oath? He was well prepared for his appearance.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Ants around the world are in jealously at the size of the dems gonads.

Damn skippy

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Ants around the world are in jealously at the size of the dems gonads.

Maybe so, but teabagging Gonzo's sack is not courage either (referring to Sessions, Kyl and company).

 

[Thump553]

He wasn't under oath for the same reason Bush and Cheney weren't under oath for their tag-team "testimony" before the 9/11 Commission. They want to "spin" without concerns about perjury.

"Testimony" without an oath or affirmation administered first is bogus, and has no more significance than water cooler chatter. Shame on the committee for allowing this charade. If they won't appear voluntarily under oath, subpeona the SOB.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Gonzales sat there and lied his ass off today. Even Arlen Specter knew he was FOS.

My question is:

Why in the f'in world wasn't he under oath?

So even now if he is caught lying he cannot be tried for purjury?

what kind of crap is that?

Clinton was tried for lying over blowjobs, surely this is a vastly more serious matter..? how can there not belegal/ criminal repercussions?

 

[Strk]

The under oath part was up to Arlen Specter, not Gonzales. Gonzales said he didn't mind it, but for some reason or another, Senator Specter said no.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Strk
The under oath part was up to Arlen Specter, not Gonzales. Gonzales said he didn't mind it, but for some reason or another, Senator Specter said no.

Wouldn't happen to have anything to do with this being a mid-term year and his party (and his power along with it) is being forced into a headwind that seems to be wanting to blow them backwards into the minority.....could it?

Nah. It couldn't be anything like concerns over another scandal appearance tainting the GOP even more.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Strk
The under oath part was up to Arlen Specter, not Gonzales. Gonzales said he didn't mind it, but for some reason or another, Senator Specter said no.

The issue was put to vote and evidently a party-line vote favored that the AG didnt have to be sworn in.

in other words, this committee is conducting a whitewash, token hearing and we are all going to get suckered.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Strk
The under oath part was up to Arlen Specter, not Gonzales. Gonzales said he didn't mind it, but for some reason or another, Senator Specter said no.

The issue was put to vote and evidently a party-line vote favored that the AG didnt have to be sworn in.

in other words, this committee is conducting a whitewash, token hearing and we are all going to get suckered.

Specter is nothing more than a douchebag no matter what "principles" he "claims" to have (which he's more than happy to cast aside where party loyalty is concerned). They already knew going in that this was going to little more than a sideshow so why should they bother bringing semantics (oaths, truth, etc.) into it?

 

[techs]

All you need is one uneducated and frightened generation to end over 200 years of freedom.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: techs
All you need is one uneducated and frightened generation to end over 200 years of freedom.

But the republicans wont be in power forever...

or will they? :shocked:

my point is. Something like constituional rights shouldn't be so easily and drastically altered without serious review and oversight. I just don't see that happening with this administration and this legislature. Everything EVERYTHING is partisan.

But rather than get all "chicken little" I suppose its only prudent to wait until the end of any congressional hearing/court hearing is to see what the course of action is over this issue. But if the start is any indictation, we are looking at another partisan crap job.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: techs
All you need is one uneducated and frightened generation to end over 200 years of freedom.

But the republicans wont be in power forever...

or will they? :shocked:

You know right before the election they are going to pass emergency war time powers to ban elections, because "how could you possibly keep are evil out while changing government, I mean the new people won't have any idea, hell I bet they will think the constitution still means something."


Disclaimer: I don't really believe this will happen, but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[arsbanned]

Gonzales: NSA may tap 'ordinary' Americans' e-mail

WASHINGTON--Agents operating a controversial National Security Agency surveillance program may have inadvertently spied on the e-mails and phone calls of Americans with no ties to terrorists, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Monday.

HAHA. Yeah, sure, "inadvertently" uh huh. I sure believe that one.... :roll:
http://news.com.com/Gonzales+NSA+may+ta...ricans+e-mail/2100-1028_3-6035637.html

These bastards should go to jail.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Gonzales: NSA may tap 'ordinary' Americans' e-mail

WASHINGTON--Agents operating a controversial National Security Agency surveillance program may have inadvertently spied on the e-mails and phone calls of Americans with no ties to terrorists, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Monday.

HAHA. Yeah, sure, "inadvertently" uh huh. I sure believe that one.... :roll:
http://news.com.com/Gonzales+NSA+may+ta...ricans+e-mail/2100-1028_3-6035637.html

These bastards should go to jail.

It was just the minority leadership's phone calls and emails. They should be checked to make sure they aren't terrorists?

 

[Bitek]

I really don't think there is any possible purjury charge. The questions in Gonzos conformation were on the basis of philosophy, if it did a sudden about face that is not perjurous. If he been asked specifically about a program and a specific action he lied about, that's something different.

Regardless, he is a lying little $hit.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Hafen
I really don't think there is any possible purjury charge. The questions in Gonzos conformation were on the basis of philosophy, if it did a sudden about face that is not perjurous. If he been asked specifically about a program and a specific action he lied about, that's something different.

Regardless, he is a lying little $hit.

I'm not sure it's as general as a question of personal philosophy, but reading his quotes from the earlier hearing, it doesn't appear he actually perjured himself. He said things that certainly sound untrue given what we know today, but those statements were also general enough that he could probably weasel out of them. While we're not yet approaching "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" territory, we're not too far off.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I saw a glimpse of the exchange on this on Headline News with the delicious Sophia Choi anchoring the story.

Feingold flat out told Gonzales that he believed that he lied to Congress to save any chance he had of being confirmed. That he put his confirmation ahead of the truth.

I can't find video....but below is a WaPo article about Feingold letting Gonzales know to expect to hear about it.

Gonzalez was asked this question by Feingold and answered it. You might consider listening to two sides of a conversation, in this case an accusation and answer. There are benefits of doing this, especially to the members of this forum, who will lap up like dogs anything they like the smell of.

 

[db]

Ck out the woman caller, and the response:
Link