Judiciary Committee Requests Perjury Investigation As More Of Gonzales' Lies Surface

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
This is the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the United States.

Caught in a lie at the latest hearing.

Text

By LAURIE KELLMAN and LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writers

The head of the FBI contradicted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' sworn testimony and Senate Democrats requested a perjury investigation Thursday in a fresh barrage against President Bush's embattled longtime friend and aide.

In a third blow to the Bush administration, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to compel the testimony of Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, in connection with its investigation of the firings of federal prosecutors.

"It has become apparent that the attorney general has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements," four Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote in a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement calling for a special counsel to investigate.

"I'm convinced that he's not telling the truth," added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

The developments marked a troubling turn for Gonzales as well as the administration, which has been on the political defensive since congressional Democrats opened an investigation seven months ago into the firings of U.S. attorneys.

That probe revealed information that Democrats have sought to weave into a pattern of improper political influence over prosecutions, of stonewalling and of deceit in sworn testimony before Congress.

The White House defiantly stuck by Gonzales on the perjury matter and flatly denied that FBI Director Robert S. Mueller on Thursday contradicted the attorney general's sworn testimony on internal Bush administration dissent over the president's secretive wiretapping program.

Gonzales repeatedly and emphatically told the Senate Judiciary Committee this week that the program was not at issue during his dramatic hospital bedside visit with ailing Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2004. Mueller, before the House Judiciary Committee Thursday, said it was.

Presidential spokesman Tony Snow said Gonzales and Mueller can make only limited comments in public about the classified program.

"The FBI director didn't contradict the testimony," Snow said. "It is inappropriate and unfair to ask people to testify in public settings about highly classified programs."

"The president, meanwhile, maintains full confidence in the attorney general," he added.

Democrats also insisted that the White House had encouraged top aides to flout congressional subpoenas in the prosecutor firings inquiry.

But Gonzales took the toughest hits Thursday, when four Senate Democrats issued a list of examples of what they said was the attorney general lying to Congress under oath ? the basis for their request to Clement to appoint a special counsel to investigate.

Among examples of what Democrats called Gonzales' untruthfulness was his insistence in his statement to the Judiciary Committee Tuesday that his hospital visit with Ashcroft was not related to an internal administration dispute about the president's secret warrantless eavesdropping program.

Last year, Gonzales told the panel that there had been no internal administration dispute about the program, but former Deputy Attorney General James Comey told the panel that he, Ashcroft and Mueller were among the top Justice Department officials who believed the program was illegal and were prepared to resign over it.

In his own sworn testimony Thursday, Mueller contradicted Gonzales, saying under questioning that the terrorist surveillance program, or 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 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.

"Did you have an understanding that the discussion was on TSP?" asked Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, in a round of questioning that may have sounded to listeners like bureaucratic alphabet soup.

"I had an understanding the discussion was on a NSA program, yes," Mueller answered.

Jackson Lee sought to clarify: "We use 'TSP,' we use 'warrantless wiretapping,' so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?"

"The discussion was on a national NSA program that has been much discussed, yes," Mueller responded.

The NSA, or National Security Agency, runs the program that eavesdropped on terror suspects in the United States, without court approval, until last January, when the program was put under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

In a statement late Thursday, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse maintained Gonzales was referring during his testimony to a separate intelligence operation that has not yet been revealed.

"The disagreement that occurred in March 2004 concerned the legal basis for intelligence activities that have not been publicly disclosed and that remain highly classified," Roehrkasse said.

Roehrkasse also suggested the newly revealed intelligence operation was discussed with lawmakers at a March 10, 2004, briefing in the White House Situation Room, along with a discussion of the terrorist surveillance program.

Democrats said there were other examples of Gonzales "lying" that merited a probe by a special prosecutor.

They included the attorney general's sworn testimony that he had not spoken about the firings with other witnesses because the matter was under investigation.

His former White House liaison, Monica Goodling, testified under a grant of immunity that Gonzales had privately recounted his recollections of the firings and asked for her opinion on his version.

"There's no wiggle room," Schumer said. "Those are not misleading. Those are deceiving. Those are lying."

Not signing the letter to Clement was Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who instead sent a letter to Gonzales Thursday giving him a week to resolve any inconsistencies in his testimony.

"The burden is on him to clear up the contradictions," Leahy said.

Ranking Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania agreed, calling the call for a special counsel premature, and he took particular aim at Schumer, who has led the probe into the firing.

"Senator Schumer's not interested in looking at the record, he's interested in throwing down the gauntlet and making a story in tomorrow's newspapers," Specter said.

Meanwhile, Leahy subpoenaed Rove, the architect of Bush's rise to the White House and his top political adviser, to provide testimony and documents related to the firings by Aug. 2. Also subpoenaed is a White House political aide, J. Scott Jennings. The Justice Department included both men on e-mails about the firings and the administration's response to the congressional investigation.

White House Counsel Fred Fielding has consistently said that top presidential aides ? present and past ? are immune from subpoenas and has declared the documents sought off-limits under executive privilege.

On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee approved a contempt citation against two other Bush confidants, Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. The full House is expected to vote on the citation in the fall, but the Justice Department has said it won't prosecute the two.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It looks like the Judiciary Committee is slowly moving towards impeaching the Attorney General by starting an independent investigation into his perjury. In the meantime, the Bush White House is doing the only thing it can do: stonewall the committee, classify information, prevent witness testimony and stand by the only person crooked enough to keep a lid on the expansive cover-ups of the Bush Administration: Alberto Gonzales.

Watching his sworn testimony before the committee, I don't know how anyone can feel anything but shame for our federal government. The highest ranking law enforcement officer in the United States is gleefully lying under oath to protect the political interests of the Bush Administration.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Now we know why the Bushies are so concerned with not testifying under oath.
Turns out they lie about everything.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
You do realize that everything Mueller is saying can not be used in a court of law against Gonzales because Mueller was not in the room at the time.
Someone else who was in the room would have to testify as to the topic of discussion in the room.
But I guess having their main evidence of wrong doing based on hearsay won?t slow the Democrats down one bit.

Sooner or later this will end up in front of the SC, let?s get it over with already. (Oh wait there are to many political points to be scored to keep them from ending this just yet.)
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You do realize that everything Mueller is saying can not be used in a court of law against Gonzales because Mueller was not in the room at the time.
Someone else who was in the room would have to testify as to the topic of discussion in the room.
But I guess having their main evidence of wrong doing based on hearsay won?t slow the Democrats down one bit.

Sooner or later this will end up in front of the SC, let?s get it over with already. (Oh wait there are to many political points to be scored to keep them from ending this just yet.)

Bush could have just told the truth and it would have ended already.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I think a lot more is going on than anyone is saying---Rove may well end up facing criminal charges over this because there are some rather strong laws about the consequences of politicizing the Justice Department. With Miers and Rove always being on the short list as people of interest. But the ink is long dry on the Miers subpoena---and now, at GWB choosing, her refusal to testify puts the executive and legislative branch into a collision course. But even 45 or so days ago when this now realized scenario was just being considered, Karl was always regarded as a specially interesting delicacy. And was to be handled with kid gloves with all aides all being interviewed first. The whole point being , that when Karl hit that witness stand, no wiggle room was to be allowed. And could be fast tracked to being screwed, blued, and tatood. Or so goes the democratic dream.

But the fact that the subpoena finally got issued does show a possible democratic belief that the evidence is now there. Nor can the FBI contradiction of Gonzales be viewed as anything but a golden democratic opening. Without a opening a executive legislative showdown might then get slow tracked to court. But since the dems want a special prosecutor, all these issues may be handed to a special prosecutor effectively limiting GWB from running out the clock on executive privilege.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You do realize that everything Mueller is saying can not be used in a court of law against Gonzales because Mueller was not in the room at the time.
Someone else who was in the room would have to testify as to the topic of discussion in the room.
But I guess having their main evidence of wrong doing based on hearsay won?t slow the Democrats down one bit.

Sooner or later this will end up in front of the SC, let?s get it over with already. (Oh wait there are to many political points to be scored to keep them from ending this just yet.)

Bush could have just told the truth and it would have ended already.
I haven't heard anyone accusing Bush of lying in this matter. So what is your point?

If someone committed perjury, or a crime, I hope they're prosecuted and punished accordingly. That said, I really wish that Congress would focus on more important issues instead... *sigh*
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
You do realize that everything Mueller is saying can not be used in a court of law against Gonzales because Mueller was not in the room at the time.
Someone else who was in the room would have to testify as to the topic of discussion in the room.
But I guess having their main evidence of wrong doing based on hearsay won?t slow the Democrats down one bit.

You pick the fact that Mueller's statement is "hearsay" because wasn't in Ashcroft's hostipital room as some kind of magic bullet that somehow dispspells all the rest of the evidence of Gonzo's guilt.

For this one, you're back to being PrevaricatorJohn[/i] because it's just another of your pathetic attempts to lie, dissemble and distract from the truth. Guess you forgot how Mueller learned about Gonzo's midnight ride to Ashcroft's bedside.

Gonzales Hospital Episode Detailed
Ailing Ashcroft Pressured on Spy Program, Former Deputy Says

By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers

On the night of March 10, 2004, as Attorney General John D. Ashcroft lay ill in an intensive-care unit, his deputy, James B. Comey, received an urgent call.

White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., were on their way to the hospital to persuade Ashcroft to reauthorize Bush's domestic surveillance program, which the Justice Department had just determined was illegal.

In vivid testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Comey said he alerted FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and raced, sirens blaring, to join Ashcroft in his hospital room, arriving minutes before Gonzales and Card. Ashcroft, summoning the strength to lift his head and speak, refused to sign the papers they had brought. Gonzales and Card, who had never acknowledged Comey's presence in the room, turned and left.

The sickbed visit was the start of a dramatic showdown between the White House and the Justice Department in early 2004 that, according to Comey, was resolved only when Bush overruled Gonzales and Card. But that was not before Ashcroft, Comey, Mueller and their aides prepared a mass resignation, Comey said. The domestic spying by the National Security Agency continued for several weeks without Justice approval, he said.

"I was angry," Comey testified. "I thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me."

The broad outlines of the hospital-room conflict have been reported previously, but without Comey's gripping detail of efforts by Card, who has left the White House, and Gonzales, now the attorney general. His account appears to present yet another challenge to the embattled Gonzales, who has strongly defended the surveillance program's legality and is embroiled in a battle with Congress over the dismissals of nine U.S. attorneys last year.

It also marks the first public acknowledgment that the Justice Department found the original surveillance program illegal, more than two years after it began.
.
.
(continues)

Comey WAS in Ashcroft's hospital room with Gonzo, Mueller learned about it from Comey, and Ashcroft, Comey, Mueller and their aides threatened to quit over the specific issue you're trying to claim isn't proven by Mueller's "hearsay" testimony. Want to try to spin some more lies? :roll:

Wait a minute... you did! :p

Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
Sooner or later this will end up in front of the SC, let?s get it over with already. (Oh wait there are to many political points to be scored to keep them from ending this just yet.)

And along the way, you're perfectly willing to pervert justice and ignore the fact that it could take until well beyond the end of the Bush adminstration's term in office to get there.

We all know you're a liar, but someone should give you a clue about how piss poor you are at it. :laugh:
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You do realize that everything Mueller is saying can not be used in a court of law against Gonzales because Mueller was not in the room at the time.
Someone else who was in the room would have to testify as to the topic of discussion in the room.
But I guess having their main evidence of wrong doing based on hearsay won?t slow the Democrats down one bit.

Sooner or later this will end up in front of the SC, let?s get it over with already. (Oh wait there are to many political points to be scored to keep them from ending this just yet.)

Bush could have just told the truth and it would have ended already.
I haven't heard anyone accusing Bush of lying in this matter. So what is your point?
It's easy to tell when Bush is lying, his lips are moving, either that or he defers to someone else to do his lying for him.

If someone committed perjury, or a crime, I hope they're prosecuted and punished accordingly. That said, I really wish that Congress would focus on more important issues instead... *sigh*

It would be nice, but how does one conduct business with a pathological liar?

 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
This attorney firing debacle is certainly the most pressing political issue on the table right now. :roll: The Democrats are searching desperately for anything through which they can deal the Bush Administration yet another blow.

The Bush legacy is dead...his two terms utter failures...and the Republicans are at an extreme disadvantage going into the 2008 election season.

But the Democrats will continue their witch hunt, focus on "nailing" the Bush Administration, and manage to screw things up yet again.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I think a lot more is going on than anyone is saying---Rove may well end up facing criminal charges over this because there are some rather strong laws about the consequences of politicizing the Justice Department. With Miers and Rove always being on the short list as people of interest. But the ink is long dry on the Miers subpoena---and now, at GWB choosing, her refusal to testify puts the executive and legislative branch into a collision course. But even 45 or so days ago when this now realized scenario was just being considered, Karl was always regarded as a specially interesting delicacy. And was to be handled with kid gloves with all aides all being interviewed first. The whole point being , that when Karl hit that witness stand, no wiggle room was to be allowed. And could be fast tracked to being screwed, blued, and tatood. Or so goes the democratic dream.

But the fact that the subpoena finally got issued does show a possible democratic belief that the evidence is now there. Nor can the FBI contradiction of Gonzales be viewed as anything but a golden democratic opening. Without a opening a executive legislative showdown might then get slow tracked to court. But since the dems want a special prosecutor, all these issues may be handed to a special prosecutor effectively limiting GWB from running out the clock on executive privilege.

totally agree with you on that... I think the democratic congresses dream is to nail rove's ass to a wall. and that wouldn't be such a bad thing. I'm still angry over the 2000 south carolina primary. heh.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You do realize that everything Mueller is saying can not be used in a court of law against Gonzales because Mueller was not in the room at the time.
Someone else who was in the room would have to testify as to the topic of discussion in the room.
But I guess having their main evidence of wrong doing based on hearsay won?t slow the Democrats down one bit.

Sooner or later this will end up in front of the SC, let?s get it over with already. (Oh wait there are to many political points to be scored to keep them from ending this just yet.)

So your standard arguments continue to be:

1. The Democrats did it at some point, so it's okay that the Republicans do it (even if the Republicans do it five times as often and 100 times as egregiously).

2. You may not be able to prove the wrongdoing in a court of law, so the (Republican) perpetrator is perfectly fine.

Are you even remotely aware how biased you are?
 

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,191
41
91
Originally posted by: palehorse74


If someone committed perjury, or a crime, I hope they're prosecuted and punished accordingly. That said, I really wish that Congress would focus on more important issues instead... *sigh*



What do you believe is more important for Congress to be working on than ensuring the Administration isn't breaking the law. That the Justice Dept is conducting business on the basis of the law and not on the basis of politics and especially not on the basis of what Karl Rove deems to be needed?

It isn't important for Congress to pass laws when the Administration is working hard to run the country as they choose in defiance of those laws.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
Originally posted by: palehorse74


If someone committed perjury, or a crime, I hope they're prosecuted and punished accordingly. That said, I really wish that Congress would focus on more important issues instead... *sigh*



What do you believe is more important for Congress to be working on than ensuring the Administration isn't breaking the law. That the Justice Dept is conducting business on the basis of the law and not on the basis of politics and especially not on the basis of what Karl Rove deems to be needed?

It isn't important for Congress to pass laws when the Administration is working hard to run the country as they choose in defiance of those laws.

You addressed this to palehorse74, but I'll take a stab at it as well:

How about Immigration? Health Care? Social Security? Tax reform? Education? Etc?

Alleged firings of attorneys simply because they weren't doing what the Administration wanted and/or because they were investigating Rep.'s is serious, no one is arguing that.

The problem is that it's not more serious than the huge problems we have with the the long term issues above.

This attorney thing is like me having major deliverables due at work, and someone spills a ton of paper clips on my desk. Now, I just need to use my keyboard and mouse to complete the major deliverables, so the paper clips can wait...but instead, I let all the major deliverables lapse so I can go pick up the paper clips.

You're seriously telling me if you were my boss, you wouldn't rip your hair out and go "WTF are you doing?!?! Get busy with real work and stop d1cking around with this chickensh1t stuff!!!"

The Dem's keep saying they were elected With a Mandate. Well how about mandating they get real things accomplished before starting in on the paper clip items (and that's paper clip items when compared with the major long term stuff, which is exactly is how these 8 attorneys compare to what I listed above).

Chuck
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
Originally posted by: palehorse74


If someone committed perjury, or a crime, I hope they're prosecuted and punished accordingly. That said, I really wish that Congress would focus on more important issues instead... *sigh*



What do you believe is more important for Congress to be working on than ensuring the Administration isn't breaking the law. That the Justice Dept is conducting business on the basis of the law and not on the basis of politics and especially not on the basis of what Karl Rove deems to be needed?

It isn't important for Congress to pass laws when the Administration is working hard to run the country as they choose in defiance of those laws.

You addressed this to palehorse74, but I'll take a stab at it as well:

How about Immigration? Health Care? Social Security? Tax reform? Education? Etc?

Alleged firings of attorneys simply because they weren't doing what the Administration wanted and/or because they were investigating Rep.'s is serious, no one is arguing that.

The problem is that it's not more serious than the huge problems we have with the the long term issues above.

This attorney thing is like me having major deliverables due at work, and someone spills a ton of paper clips on my desk. Now, I just need to use my keyboard and mouse to complete the major deliverables, so the paper clips can wait...but instead, I let all the major deliverables lapse so I can go pick up the paper clips.

You're seriously telling me if you were my boss, you wouldn't rip your hair out and go "WTF are you doing?!?! Get busy with real work and stop d1cking around with this chickensh1t stuff!!!"

The Dem's keep saying they were elected With a Mandate. Well how about mandating they get real things accomplished before starting in on the paper clip items (and that's paper clip items when compared with the major long term stuff, which is exactly is how these 8 attorneys compare to what I listed above).

Chuck

you talk like it's not possible to multitask... but in any event, they're limited in how much they can get done in areas like immigration, health care, social security, tax reform, education, etc. the president can veto whatever the hell he feels like veto'ing and there's not a damn thing the democrats can do about it without a veto-proof majority in congress.

the one thing they can do, even with their razor thin majority, is provide some oversight that was sorely lacking for much of Bush's two terms in office.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
Originally posted by: loki8481

you talk like it's not possible to multitask... but in any event, they're limited in how much they can get done in areas like immigration, health care, social security, tax reform, education, etc. the president can veto whatever the hell he feels like veto'ing and there's not a damn thing the democrats can do about it without a veto-proof majority in congress.

the one thing they can do, even with their razor thin majority, is provide some oversight that was sorely lacking for much of Bush's two terms in office.

Look, the time for "multitasking" is over. Congress has had decades to get these major issues taken care of, and they've failed. If Congress were run like organizations in a Corp., then all the org. VP's would have been fired many times over by now.

We have an estimated 12 million people here illegally, and growing. Think about that for a while and then tell me how these 8 attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the president are more important than solving that issue?

We have no national health care, nor a means for reduced health care for low income familes. Medical costs year over year for the past years are skyrocketing. How does a family making 40k a year with a kid or two pay for cancer treatments? Debilitating illness? You know, the stuff that costs 10's of thousands of dollars. These 8 attorneys that serve at the pleasure of the president are more important than getting that solved?

Social Security? Do I even need to get into how many people (that's many millions, year after year) that affects, and how F'd up it is? These 8 attorneys that serve at the pleasure of the President are more important than that?

We have a tax system that IMHO seems to exist for large tax firms to keep their folks employed, and as shelters for the mega rich...how about fixing that so the tax code is simple and fair to all? No, I see, the 8 attorneys that serve at the pleasure of the President are far more important than that... :roll:

What is plainly obvious is the Congress as a whole, and right now the Dem's are setting the agenda, is more interested in not locking themselves down and solving the huge major long term issues it's their job to solve.

Don't give me excuses on Oh, well, it's Bush's fault because he veto'd it...

...then Congress needs to get their sh1t together and bring something better to the table.

There's people dumber than dirt in this country because the education system has failed them, people suffering and dieing because of poor/no access to quality health care, 12 million untraceable illegals walking around, a tax code that's absurd, a joke of a Fed. retirement pot (aka SS)...and Congress is wasting one second on 8 attorneys that serve at the pleasure of the President?!!?!?

Complete Unacceptable!!!!!

Chuck
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Bush is going to veto pretty much any healthcare bill, no matter how good it may be (likewise for any immigration bill that doesn't favor his pro-legalization policies or any/every bill that might in any way, shape, or form suggest an iraq withdraw), and republicans aren't going to vote to override the veto for fear of making the democratic party look good... what can a majority of 1 (and not even 1, really... it's technically 49:49:2) do to circumvent that?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The dems are trying---but even without a GWB veto---the republicans are obstructing everything congress tries. The GWB veto pen is still almost a virgin. And is in no danger of running out if ink from overuse. And in fact, the GOP is setting a NEW US RECORD FOR THE NUMBER OF FILIBUSTERS USED THUS FAR BY ANY US CONGRESS IN HISTORY.

What does that tell us?
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
Originally posted by: Lemon law
The dems are trying---but even without a GWB veto---the republicans are obstructing everything congress tries. The GWB veto pen is still almost a virgin. And is in no danger of running out if ink from overuse. And in fact, the GOP is setting a NEW US RECORD FOR THE NUMBER OF FILIBUSTERS USED THUS FAR BY ANY US CONGRESS IN HISTORY.

What does that tell us?

It tells me Congress should lock itself down - and that's a real lockdown, everyone in session no excuses unless you're hospitalized - until they emerge with bills agreed to by both parties and ready for the Presidents review.

That way the Dem.'s and Rep.'s can meet somewhere in the middle on too liberal and too conservative and actually get something accomplished.

Only a rabid "Bush&Co" bashing troll would argue that if Congress did that, Bush would veto the bill.

Instead, Congress does this.

To coin phrase: Way to go Dem'ies, you're doing a heckuva job!!! :( :thumbsdown: :(

Chuck
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Couldn't this whole thing have been avoided if someone (you know who) had just said from the start, "Yeah. I asked for their resignations. It's my perogative." ?

Now, however, this whole thing is about lying to congress, is it not? The attorneys are no longer an issue.

I keep hearing this voice in my head "It's not about a blowjob, it's about lying to Congress." Isn't this the same thing?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,146
9,287
136
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You do realize that everything Mueller is saying can not be used in a court of law against Gonzales because Mueller was not in the room at the time.
Someone else who was in the room would have to testify as to the topic of discussion in the room.
But I guess having their main evidence of wrong doing based on hearsay won?t slow the Democrats down one bit.

Sooner or later this will end up in front of the SC, let?s get it over with already. (Oh wait there are to many political points to be scored to keep them from ending this just yet.)

Bush could have just told the truth and it would have ended already.
I haven't heard anyone accusing Bush of lying in this matter. So what is your point?

If someone committed perjury, or a crime, I hope they're prosecuted and punished accordingly. That said, I really wish that Congress would focus on more important issues instead... *sigh*

There is no higher order than taking shots in our political civil war. Gonzales, perhaps from incompetence, or by sheer virtue of seven months of attacks and heckling has finally failed to recall accurately every single detail of his work. Ask Martha Stewart or Scooter Libby, being investigated and accused is in and of itself a high crime worthy of witch hunts and jail.
 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
There is no higher order than taking shots in our political civil war. Gonzales, perhaps from incompetence, or by sheer virtue of seven months of attacks and heckling has finally failed to recall accurately every single detail of his work.

Actually, he pretty much failed to recall every detail of anything even minorly related to the scandal. The "alzheimers" excuse would work except that on top of claiming that he doesn't recall anything, his testimony conflicts with the testimony of others and Bush is refusing to let Miers and Taylor testify. How you can look at that and portray Gonzales as the victim is beyond me.