Misleading Senators while under oath.
By on Feb 8th, 2006 at 11:17 am
Misleading Senators while under oath.
Mort Halperin, a National Security Council official under President Clinton, says Gonzales’ sworn testimony to Russ Feingold in January 2005 “constitutes a crime and the Judiciary Committee should refer the matter to the Justice Department and ask for the appointment of a special counsel.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
I am reminded by that one section of “A Tale of Two Cities” (yea, dull, I know…I tried several times but never finished the book, but I have seen the movie)where this old woman is sitting right under the raised stage in the town center, knitting, while gleefully cackling:
“Guillotine! Guillotine!”
IMHO, that would be too easy. Someone, get a rope.
February 8th, 2006 at 11:25 amYeah I agree but le gen gonzo is the justice dept head honcho…….
February 8th, 2006 at 11:25 amYeah, but AG AG (That sounds like a Star Wars/Evil Empire reference) will get away with it…
After all his pal GW will just pardon him.
Z.
February 8th, 2006 at 11:25 am#1 kindness –
Madame Defarge? Is that the name you were looking for? It was one of my favorite stories when I was younger, but the, I’ve always been drawn to the romantic hero who sacrifices himself to save a good person, or one he loved. (”It’s a far, far better thing I do than I have ever done. It is a far, far better rest I go to than I have ever known.” Now how can you not like that?)
Back on topic:
Well, a witness has just told the Judiciary Committee straight up that a crime was probably committed and that it should be investigated by a special prosecutor.
Now, what will Senator Specter’s excuse be for not doing it? And will Senator Leahy stand up to him and publicly excoriate Senator Specter should the latter not follow through? How can the Republicans in Congress continue to ignore the law-breaking by this administration, especially when they seem so proud to be doing it?
February 8th, 2006 at 11:32 amwho cares about breaking the law, the neo-cons certainly don’t and most republicans don’t. they’ve proved it time and time again. and as far as the dems. go?? well what can you say. they just sit there job scared it’s so sad.
February 8th, 2006 at 11:43 amSenator Specter like all the senator’s on the Judicial committee know damn well that the law was broken, but the’re all to chickenshit to do anything about it, and they got the votes…sad that the “rule of law” only applies,
February 8th, 2006 at 11:45 amif your party has something to gain from it
Wayne – I always enjoy your literate responses. Thanks for posting.
February 8th, 2006 at 11:47 am#5, I really liked Diane Feinstein’s telling off the General! Did you catch it? She said that he broke the law and that she’d see about getting a bill passed. That’ll teach him ;)
Can you imagine if the government actually had something like they do on the freeways? You know, you’re driving a little too fast and the little red lights come on behind you, and (if you’re one of us) you get a ticket. That’s because they are there looking for those speeding and/or dangerous and don’t necessarily wait until the big pileup (NSA scandal) before doing something about it.
February 8th, 2006 at 12:07 pmYes, by all means, let’s have an investigation – but first, let’s have an up-or-down vote on whether to ban the NSA program. Either keep it going or shut it down, you make the call.
February 8th, 2006 at 12:13 pm#7 You are welcome and thank you, c_r_c. It’s nice to be appreciated. It comes from a love of reading. That’s why I always like to encourage the trolls to
READ A BOOK!
:)
February 8th, 2006 at 12:16 pmI don’t understand. If you or I broke the law we’d be arrested immediately and spend the night in the pokey, indicted the next morning, with a trial date set by the judge. What’s wrong in America when our leaders get a free ’stay-out-of-jail’ pass for however long they like while they continue to break the law? What kind of leadership example is this? If you break the law you should be treated like every average American would be treated: arrested, hauled out in handcuffs, and the right to a speedy trial. We need to take the kid gloves off and indict the criminals.
February 8th, 2006 at 12:17 pmWell I would favor an up or down vote to ban the illegal domestic spying that’s been going on. I don’t know why anybody would think we weren’t talking about that.
February 8th, 2006 at 12:18 pmChangeAmerica.net:
What? You want him to prosecute himself? Gonzales (The Torture Dude) is a piece of human feces. That means he fits right in with the rest of the Bush Crime Family. Bush surrounds himself with loyal cronies, and dirtbags. You need to have a felony conviction or two just to join the Gang.
http://www.ChangeAmerica.net
February 8th, 2006 at 12:20 pmGonzo’s head on the block? Where is my knitting when I need it?
February 8th, 2006 at 12:31 pm#12 Would you favor an up-or-down vote to nullify the Constitution and abrogate the Bill of Rights?
Because I don’t trust 51% of the country with that choice right now.
February 8th, 2006 at 12:32 pm#11 I guess if you break the law and the police come to arrest you, just say, “I don’t think I broke the law and here’s why my actions are legal by statute.”
I’m sure they’ll understand, they won’t even put you under oath.
February 8th, 2006 at 12:33 pmYeah, but AG AG (That sounds like a Star Wars/Evil Empire reference) will get away with it…
After all his pal GW will just pardon him.
Comment by Zwack #3
Yeah Z,
That’ll be swell…
…to see Bushiva publicly pardon two lying felons (Libby and Gonzo)…
…it’s going to be the “act” that counts…
February 8th, 2006 at 12:38 pmYeah, but AG AG (That sounds like a Star Wars/Evil Empire reference) will get away with it…
After all his pal GW will just pardon him.
Comment by Zwack #3
Yeah Z,
That’ll be just what the Dr. ordered to have Bushiva pardon two lying felons (Libby and Gonzo)…
It’ll be the “act” that counts…
February 8th, 2006 at 12:41 pm#15 cynical
If you mean me, then no, of course not. My question was meant in sarcasm since “illegal domestic spying” is already banned (hence, “illegal”). I was just trying to derail the notion suggested by some that what we want to see stopped is not what the right-wing is saying we ought to vote on.
Our side wants the illegal spying on domestic groups with no connection to terrorism stopped. But some on the right keep saying “Let’s have an up-or-down vote on whether we should stop spying on terrorists” which, of course, is not the question that needs to be addressed.
And as to putting the vote to the people, I would say we need time to educate them on the issue so that they can make an informed decision, not an emotional one which the right wing likes to do.
February 8th, 2006 at 12:52 pmBu$hco is like a serial killer. They are begging to be caught. “Stop me before I kill again!” As a result, their crimes become more brazen, overt and reckless to the point of bragging about it. When will the “police” finally nail these people?
Also, response to Big Papa (#17): Hell, the guy gave Georgie Boy Tenant the Presidential Medal of Freedom after the 9/11 Commission publicly and scathingly indicted him for the intellegence failures that led to the attacks. Why the hell wouldn’t he pardon the whole rotten bunch? He believes he can do whatever he wants to, like the spoiled legacy Yale boy he is. “Bring ‘em on!”
February 8th, 2006 at 12:52 pmIn Response to #11 above: Oh, yes. That is totally the case. However, laws only apply to us “Little People”. Haven’t we learned anything from Leona Helmsley?
February 8th, 2006 at 12:57 pm#19 correction
That should read:
“I was just trying to derail the notion suggested by some that what we want to see stopped is what the right-wing is saying we ought to vote on.”
I meant to imply they are suggesting something other than what we want.
I regret the error.
February 8th, 2006 at 12:57 pmIf Gonzo took up skydiving and his chute failed, it would take the EPA Superfund to clean up all the shit.
February 8th, 2006 at 1:00 pmWhy doesn’t this get covered in the mainstream media?? Its obvious that Gonzales lied under oath during his conformation hearing. Maybe Olbermann will pick up the story…..
February 8th, 2006 at 1:00 pmNeal, I’ll tell you why this doesn’t get covered in the MSM: Because they have been wiretapping every last one of them, they have all the dirty laundry they will ever need, and MSM reporters are being blackmailed to toe the party line.
February 8th, 2006 at 1:09 pmAs to an “Up or Down” vote to “Ban the NSA program” why do we need one?
The constitution exists and it does not allow Warrantless wiretapping. FISA (an existing law) does not allow Warrantless wiretapping. What are we going to have next? A suspected rapist demanding that before he is tried that Congress need to have an up or down vote on whether his rapes should be stopped?
This is total BS. The program is clearly illegal so why does it need to be voted on. If you don’t like the law then have it changed. If you can’t have the law changed then live with it. Or are you going to claim that this is Presidential “Civil” disobedience?
Z.
February 8th, 2006 at 1:18 pm“Guillotine! Guillotine!â€
Wow. That’s scary. I think that’s that a threat and against the law.
I also think you are dreaming if Gonzo is going to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate himself. It won’t happen.
Kindness – you are as bad as these Muslim fanatics throwing a temper tantrum over a cartoon. You preach violence against those who do not prescribe to your anti-American views. If you had your way, you would murder Bush, Cheney and Gonzales. You are no better than Bin Laden.
February 8th, 2006 at 1:23 pmBTW, the left’s hatred for Gonzo is much appreciated by the radical right. I don’t want him on the Supreme Court and your ire will ensure that. Instead, when John Paul Stevens steps later this year, as expected, Bush will be forced to appoint another right wing ideologue.
You just smeared your best chance at another O’Connor. Poor things – you guys just don’t get it. I think it’s called tone deaf.
February 8th, 2006 at 1:26 pmKen – you remind me of those fanatics torching European embassies. You are a scary lot. Unlike the Euros, we’ll fight back if you get out of hand.
February 8th, 2006 at 1:28 pmRightly So: What was so scary about what I said? Oh, yeah, the part about enforcing the law. My bad. I guess that would make you guys scared…
Just another right wing example of either/or. Nobody hates poor Mr. Gonzales. Personally I pity the man for having to pit his status as an officer of the court against his desire to keep his job. Why do you have make not agreeing with his policies or application of the law personal? Is it because you have no rational argument to defend his breaking of the law?
Also, what do you mean by “…we’ll fight back.”? Is that a threat? I can’t believe that Americans would threaten other Americans because they don’t happen to agree with their political views. Shocking! Is that what our brave soldiers are fighting for in Iraq? “Freedom is on the march!” Hey look! They are talking about gay cowboys on The Factor!
February 8th, 2006 at 1:45 pmRightly So…
At no point in the post by Kindness was any name mentioned. SHe was referring to a book it reminded hir of. I don’t see any way that a right thinking person could interpret that as a threat.
I don’t hate AG AG… I just disagree with everything that he stands for. Having him on the Supreme court would be a BAD move as he would OK anything the president wanted without worrying about either legal justification or the Constitution.
If AG AG is our best chance at another O’Connor then this country must have run out of good lawyers. Please say it ain’t so.
As for your maligning of “Euros” I wouldn’t expect a currency to be able to fight anybody. But your comment that you will “fight back if you get out of hand” sounds exactly like a threat. I hope you will now go and turn yourself in at your local Police Station and plead guilty to Threatening Behaviour.
Z.
P.S. does anyone know why so many Right Wingers have anger management issues? It seems to be a common trend.
February 8th, 2006 at 1:47 pmGood one, Zwack. Last I checked, the Euro was kicking the Dollar’s ass…
February 8th, 2006 at 1:54 pmI’m a guy btw. I figured that was obvious.
don’t let rightly so bother anyone. Probably hasn’t a clue what “A Tale of Two Cities” is or is about. For the literary imapred (of which I am one because I could never finish that damn book) it’s a story about a few peoples lives during the French Revolution, hence the author’s use of the guillotine.
Now if you want to get me, you would have mentioned my saying “get a rope”. Again for the reichtwingnutz educationally impared and socially illiterate, that is a metaphor for hanging.
Hanging is too good for these bastards. Got that rightlyso? Call the NSA now & report us all. We’ve got a WHOLE BLOG of SUBVERSIVES over there!!!!
February 8th, 2006 at 1:55 pmRightly So…=NeD. Your childish rants about winning and burning give you away. Now, go shave.
February 8th, 2006 at 2:04 pmSpeaking of Bin Laden, where is he NeD?
February 8th, 2006 at 2:05 pmThe constitution exists and it does not allow Warrantless wiretapping. FISA (an existing law) does not allow Warrantless wiretapping.
Wrong. The federal courts have recognized the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance. The FISA court has recognized this inherent authority, and has observed that FISA would be unconstitutional if it were construed to limit that authority. Moreover, the AUMF, as interpreted by the Hamdi decision, clearly recognizes the President’s power to engage in the fundamental incidents of war. Since this includes bombs and bullets, it must also include lesser degrees of force, including the kind of “hot pursuit” surveillance performed by the NSA.
The constitution does not require us to fight our enemies blind, or with one hand tied behiond our back. Nor does it require us to get congressional approval madde by the commander in chief. Tactical decisions are vested solely in him, and not in any other branch of government.
The Left knows all this. It has never mustered a sound argument to the contrary. It just keeps howling at the moon, in hopes that it might fall from the sky.
This is just a suggestion: stop howling for a few minutes. Go read Cass Sunstein, Teddy Kennedy’s favorite liberal law professor. You will see what an uphill battle you are fighting. You will see that mere assertions are not facts. You will see that mere opinions are not legal precedents. There is, even in this liberal scholars eyes, a plausible argument in favor of the NSA program. Instead of plugging its collective ears perhaps the fever swamp would do well to muster a plausible legal argument of its own.
February 8th, 2006 at 2:12 pmBS Red…
Where in the constitution does it say “The President can ignore the fourth amendment during a time of war”?
I can’t find it…
I’m interested in knowing why you think FISA judges have resigned because the President ignored FISA if FISA is irrelevant.
You’re living up to your name BS Red now please justify your comments without referring to the Hamdi decision that has already been slapped down numerous times on here.
Z.
February 8th, 2006 at 2:16 pm#36 please elaborate on which courts and which cdecisions you are relying upon. In my reading it has been a well established fact that no one branch of the government may ever circumvent the constitution. So please enlightenus on which decisions allow the president to over rule the constitution. First though try reading a bit about watergate and the deicions stemming from those crimes, then read the deicsion on when truman tried to take over the steel mills.
February 8th, 2006 at 2:23 pmAs I understand it, bsr has stated the admin case correctly. Don’t know who is right but this is the very reason that Alito should have been stopped. They will push it to the friendly Court. Wait and see.
February 8th, 2006 at 2:25 pmYea well it’s still a 5 to 4 court that progressives will win on this case.
February 8th, 2006 at 2:39 pmDon’t feed the trolls.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:06 pmAny court decision that affirmed the “inherent authority of the president” spin were BEFORE the FISA law as enacted. The simple fact is this: The President has no authority to break the law. If he had a problem with FISA, he could have asked Congress to amend it. Christ! In the aftermath of 9/11, Congress would have legalized torture if Bush had asked them. And AG AG saying George Washington authorized warrantless wiretaps in his intro to the hearings? What’s up with that???
February 8th, 2006 at 3:14 pmThe FISA court has recognized this inherent authority, and has observed that FISA would be unconstitutional if it were construed to limit that authority.
Comment by Blue State Red #36
Blueba*ls inb’Red,
Is that why the FISA Judge stepped down in protest?
…I think not!
Judd already cleared that little inbred “lie” up ,(”FISA would be unconstitutional if it were construed to limit that authority”) yesterday, when IRI tried it…
Judd replied, “the administration is not arguing that FISA is unconstitutional”…
…and he’s right…
February 8th, 2006 at 3:26 pmTop 10 GOP Soundbites:
Coming in at #5 “Up or Down Vote”
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000316.htm
February 8th, 2006 at 4:45 pmBSR,
Explain to me how, in your mind, Alberto Gonzales didn’t bold face lie to Congress on Monday.
Russ Feingold gave a speech on the Senate floor yesterday where he laid exactly why the Bush warrantless wiretaps are illegal.
You don’t need to read his speech, just the Bush quotes and Gonzales quotes. This is just facts with links to the speeches or hearings, which most come from the White House website.
Raw Story
Febraury 7, 2006
Amidst flurry of Bush attacks, Feingold hits Congress wiretaps: ‘Congress has lost its way’
Besides the already popular:
White House
April 20, 2004
President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
Feingold gave us a new one:
I went and got the whole thing for ya.
White House
July 14, 2004
President’s Remarks at Ask President Bush Event
Yesterday in his unsworn in “testimony” Alberto Gonzales said that when Bush was talking about getting court orders, he meant roving wiretaps only.
Washington Post
February 6, 2006
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Holds a Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency’s Surveillance Authority
Clearly, the new quote that I have provided here states “In other words, the government can’t move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order.”
Then Russ had this quote:
White House
June 9, 2005
President Discusses Patriot Act
Busted!
This would be why he wasn’t sworn in. He just lied.
February 8th, 2006 at 6:33 pm#45 Excellent work, Spudge_Boy!
February 8th, 2006 at 6:41 pmBusted!
This would be why he wasn’t sworn in. He just lied.
Comment by Spudge_Boy #45
Spudge_you go Boy!!!!
February 8th, 2006 at 8:46 pm“Bring (us) the Head of Alberto Gonzales!”
February 8th, 2006 at 8:48 pmGonzo had to lie the spying was set up by Ashcroff. Gonzo was only doing what he was told and if lying is part of the job well so be it he lied. He was under oath so he didn’t commit a sin some what. Maybe he’ll ask for forgiveness for lying and ask Ashcroff to answer the 51 questions. He lied for his boss our King George.
February 8th, 2006 at 11:55 pmWhat AG Gonzales, Bush, Cheaney, and the like mean,
When they say the president said that Roveing wiretaps aren’t allowed, that they don’t do those, yada, yada, yada,
They actually are saying,
That the NSA doesn’t wire tap Rove, Karl Rove.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:19 am#45 Still excellent work, Spudge_Boy, but as Jane pointed out to me when we read them closer last night, should “FEINSTEIN” be “FEINGOLD”? Or were those questions asked by the Senator from California and not Wisconsin? Understandable mistake, if it was. Keep up the great work!
February 9th, 2006 at 8:31 amWe all need to bookmark this page cause BSR will be posting the same crap on other threads till he stops paying his internet bill.
That’s just the way he does business. It’s funny to, cause each day he get’s into this crap he acts like no one has ever told him different.
Maybe he has the same intelligence level of king dumbya?
ps- please forgive my spelling. Not my best attribute.
February 9th, 2006 at 10:08 amCongress will NEVER, NEVER hold Republicans to account for lying to them until Congress is not controlled by Republicans.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:14 amRepublicans will NEVER lose control of Congress as long as MONEY buys seats.
Money will continue to rule our government as long as we allow MONEY to flow into our political system unfettered, unexamined, and undocumented. Doesn’t matter which party takes the money, it will ALWAYS corrupt our government.
The ability to accept that money is what Congress will protect, not our country or integrity or honesty in government. MONEY. That keeps the incumbant in his seat, and only an incumbant, someone in actually in Congress at the moment, CAN change the laws allowing money to corrupt our government.
PACs are way that happens and the “word” they speak is bribery.
Spudge_Boy,
Never mind the correction. I saw the transcripts elsewhere and they matched yours, so you were right. It was the senator from California asking those questions. Sorry to have questioned you. I shall do my best not to make that mistake again. I give you my word of honor as a veteran of the United States Air Force.
February 9th, 2006 at 7:06 pmruss toys
Once logged in, a child is welcomed to the extensive online Webkinz world, where they can play games to earn "Kinzcash," a
March 20th, 2008 at 2:09 am