AG Gonzales *NOT* sworn in to discuss spying

Discussion in 'World Events' started by See Post, Feb 6, 2006.

Random Thread
  1. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By bboisvert

    Why would there be a party-line division against swearing in Alberto Gonzales before his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Comittee? I would think that if they (the Administration) wanted to be forthcoming and honest, they would *ask* to be sworn in. If they are as confident as they say they are, they should have no problem being under oath. Right?
     
  2. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By TomSawyer

    That's odd - what possible reason could there be for the Attorney General to not be sworn in?
     
  3. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Dabob2

    I can think of one.
     
  4. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By imadisneygal

    I don't understand it, either. I am perfectly willing to listen to his story since he seems to be the one who can make the whole thing make sense legally. It seems to me that he'd be chomping at the bit to be sworn in. Otherwise it just looks like he's hiding something. He should avoid the appearance of impropriety and give sworn testimony.
     
  5. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Beaumandy

    Do any of you liberals REALLY think these hearings are going to help your cause?

    Why can't you understand that your "terrorist bill of rights" campaign is not going to go over very big with anyone other than the moonbats?

    You think Gonzalez is actually lying to hide some big " spy scandal "?

    Most sane people are glad we are watching what Al Quaida is doing.
     
  6. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By TomSawyer

    That's beside the point, Beau.

    Why didn't they want the AG to be sworn in?
     
  7. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By TomSawyer

    We're all glad that we're watching what al Qaeda is doing. But some of us aren't happy that the Constitution may have been ignored or outright shunned.
     
  8. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By imadisneygal

    "Do any of you liberals REALLY think these hearings are going to help your cause?

    Why can't you understand that your "terrorist bill of rights" campaign is not going to go over very big with anyone other than the moonbats?

    You think Gonzalez is actually lying to hide some big " spy scandal "?

    Most sane people are glad we are watching what Al Quaida is doing."

    I am VERY glad that we're watching Al Qaeda. I think it's fine, necessary, whatever...However, that doesn't change the fact that if AG Gonzales has nothing to hide he should be sworn in. It's unimportant that he's testifying about this particular matter. It doesn't matter if the hearings will help any cause. Again, the appearance of impropriety - if the tables were turned and this was a democrat then the republicans would be up in arms, too. It seems cut and dry to me. If you're the AG, you should be telling the truth. And if you're telling the truth, you should have absolutely no problem being sworn in.
     
  9. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder

    So no right winger has yet to answer why he shouldn't be sworn in.
     
  10. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Beaumandy

    Maybe he wa't sworn in because it would make it look like he was on trial, like a common criminal when that's not the case.

    Glad to see yourself finally start to seperate yourself from the " right wingers " STPH.
     
  11. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

    <Why didn't they want the AG to be sworn in?>

    Who is they?
     
  12. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder

    If he wants to appear honest and above board, he allows himself to be sworn in. After all, it is testimony.

    Here's a nice exchange, courtesy of CNN:

    >>Sen. Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, accused Gonzales of misleading Congress during his 2005 confirmation hearings, when Feingold asked him whether the president could "authorize violations of the criminal law when there are duly enacted statutes, simply because he's commander in chief."

    At the time, Gonzales called that a hypothetical situation and said, "It's not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes."

    Monday, he said no laws were broken when Bush ordered the wiretapping program without court approval.

    "I told the truth then. I'm telling the truth now," he said. "You asked about a hypothetical situation of the president of the United States authorizing electronic surveillance in violation of our criminal statutes. That has not occurred."

    Feingold shot back that Gonzales "has taken mincing words to a new high."<<

    All eight Democrats took issue with Gonzales' unique interpretation of the law, along with four of the ten Republicans. Here's more:

    "In a long day of testimony, Gonzales argued that the 2001 resolution authorizing military action against the al Qaeda terrorist network and President Bush's "inherent constitutional authority" give Bush the authority for the program.

    But the panel's chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said President Bush "doesn't have a blank check" to bypass a special court set up to approve secret wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

    Specter said no "fair, realistic reading" of the 2001 resolution gives the administration the power to conduct electronic surveillance of people inside the United States without a warrant.

    "There has been an express will of Congress to the contrary," Specter said. He urged the administration to submit its program to the federal court that oversees wiretap requests "lock, stock and barrel" for its review.

    "Let them see the whole thing and let them pass judgment, because if they disagree with you, it's the equilibrium of our constitutional system that's involved," he said.

    Leahy: Bush not 'above the law'
    The committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said Bush does not have "the power to decide what laws to ignore." (Watch Leahy's sharp questioning of Gonzales -- 1:45)

    "Nobody is above the law -- not even the president of the United States," he said.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, questioned whether the administration's argument would make it more difficult for future presidents to get approval for military action.

    Graham, a judge in the Air Force Reserve, said he "never envisioned" that his vote for the 2001 resolution would give Bush the authority to get around FISA.

    But Gonzales said government agents "could lose access to valuable information" if they had to follow the process of obtaining a warrant, even though the 1978 law allows warrant applications to be made up to 72 hours after the fact."

    Anyone else find it sadly ironic this Administration is trampling all over the very rights 2000 of the troops they've sent to protect those rights have died ?
     
  13. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By woody

    >>Specter said no "fair, realistic reading" of the 2001 resolution gives the administration the power to conduct electronic surveillance of people inside the United States without a warrant.<<

    >>Graham, a judge in the Air Force Reserve, said he "never envisioned" that his vote for the 2001 resolution would give Bush the authority to get around FISA.<<

    Okay, they have spoken.

    What if they knew what they voted for?

    -----------
    <a href="http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013056.php" target="_blank">http://powerlineblog.com/archi
    ves/013056.php</a>

    "Durbin presented the usual Democratic line, which assumes that the the intercept program violates FISA and proceeds from there. I pointed out that the Attorney General had just explained how FISA contains an exception for surveillance authorized by another act of Congress, and that (in Gonzales' view) the congressional authorization of force (AUMF), by authorizing all means necessary to prevent another attack, provides authorization independent of FISA for the administration to listen to al Qaeda calls into the U.S. Durbin allowed that I had accurately recited the Attorney General's argument."

    "I then asked why, if the Democrats disagree with the administration's understanding of what AUMF authorizes, they don't present clarifying legislation telling the administration that its interpretation is incorrect. This would enable the Senate to vote on whether it thinks listening to calls from al Qaeda to the U.S. is a necessary and proper measure to prevent another attack."

    "Apparently peeved at the thought of having to vote on that issue, Senator Durbin asked what organization I was with. I told him I was respresenting Power Line and Pajamas Media. Durbin said he wasn't familiar with this group, and then proceeded to address my question. His answer was (I quote from memory) that "this is not how things work" and that (if I understood him correctly) the issue is whether the president's actions are constitutional.

    The hypothetical sounds like a violation of law. It also sounds like a GOT YA moment because actual issue was something entirely different."
    --------

    Let there be a vote!!!
     
  14. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By woody

    I inserted a sentence that should not have belonged there..

    "The hypothetical sounds like a violation of law. It also sounds like a GOT YA moment because actual issue was something entirely different."

    This was in response to >>Feingold shot back that Gonzales "has taken mincing words to a new high."<<
     
  15. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By retlawfan

    I may be going out on a limb here, but...

    Maybe since we are at WAR, we don't want the enemy(who also watches CNN) to know how we operate our spying programs.

    Gee, that was a hard one.
     
  16. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By JeffG

    >> "Maybe since we are at WAR, we don't want the enemy(who also watches CNN) to know how we operate our spying programs." <<

    That might be justification for refusing to testify or for asking for the proceedings to be sealed. How is it justification for refusing to be sworn-in, though?

    -Jeff
     
  17. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder

    ^^^No one can answer that because there is no good answer.
     
  18. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

    <If he wants to appear honest and above board, he allows himself to be sworn in.>

    Did the Attorney General refuse to be sworn in?

    <Anyone else find it sadly ironic this Administration is trampling all over the very rights 2000 of the troops they've sent to protect those rights have died ?>

    Two thousand of our troops did not die to protect the right of terrorists to communicate privately.
     
  19. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By bboisvert

    <<<Why didn't they want the AG to be sworn in?>

    Who is they? >>

    They is all of the Republicans on the Committee.


    =============
    <<<If he wants to appear honest and above board, he allows himself to be sworn in.>

    Did the Attorney General refuse to be sworn in? >>

    Not sure. I'd have to watch the reruns. I know that the Dems asked for him to be under oath and the Republicans shut them down. Not sure if Gonzales ever got the opportunity to say if he wanted to or not.

    ===========
    <<if the tables were turned and this was a democrat then the republicans would be up in arms, too.>>

    Anyone remember Waco? AG Janet Reno was sworn in for before that committee. Can you imagine the uproar if she had not been?
     
  20. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By gadzuux

    This situation is not unlike when the CEOs of the oil corporations were called in to testify before congress. They knew they were going to lie, so backroom deals were cut prior to the session.

    >> Did the Attorney General refuse to be sworn in? <<

    A disingenous question, and you know it. Gonzales absolutely doesn't want to be sworn in to testify under oath, because it would lead to the possibility of perjury charges. Gonzales's testimony will likely contradict his earlier statements. Why go for perjury when good old fashioned lying will do?

    The fact that the GOP prevents the AG from taking an oath to tell the truth is a glaring example of the corruption of this administration. They're putting their own partisan politics above the entire purpose of the hearings - to "fact find" - to determine the truth. They'd rather see the highest law enforcement officer in the nation openly lie and prevaricate than actually divulge what they're doing. The reason for that is simple - what they're doing is illegal and they know it.

    Some of the toughest questions are coming from the GOP themselves. Specter today advised gonzales to "rethink his answer". It was more of the cat and mouse game about 'hypothetical' situations in which the bush administration would use information gleaned through unauthorized wiretaps to then turn around and use that information to request further taps. Gonzales replied (in effect) that they wouldn't do that, presumeably because they understand the "fruit from the poisoned tree" concept and would expect the FISA court to turn them down.

    Wrong answer. Gonzales is essentially admitting that once on a course of action to circumvent the FISA court, they are then required to continuously circumvent the court for all subsequent wiretaps that derive from the original tap. in essence spiraling further into domestic wiretaps with zero oversight.

    Also, gonzales's position is that the AUMF authorizes them to conduct warrantless taps, even when the senate intelligence committee who oversaw the original AUMF is telling them it was never their intention. So there's your answer. If the governing body that authorized the AUMF says it doesn't include carte blanche for wiretaps, how then can the administration continue to say that it does?

    Finally, bush said that he cleared the procedures with the 'senate select intelligence committee'. This is incorrect. What he did was to cherry pick about six to eight members of the committee to advise of the program. The entire committee consists of fifteen congressmen. So he's in violation of the statute (the "law") that requires him to advise the committee.

    This kind of criminal corruption will continue as long as the GOP controls both houses and the executive branch. It's absolute power and they're running away with it wholly unchecked.

    The solution is to return to a government of checks and balances, and that requires two parties to have a voice.

    "Anybody but republicans" in 2006. We have to - the integrity of our nation is at stake.
     

Share This Page