Gonzales lies under oath

This is a surprise?

Libby misremembers.

Gonzalez misremembers.

I can't say I have a lot of confidence in my government right now. Or should I say...a LOT less than I normally do.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Jul 25 2007, 06:09 PM) [snapback]485135[/snapback]</div>

Why? What's congress going to do? Hold hearings? Bush isn't going to ask him to resign. Why should he? Presidential approval ratings? They're in the toilet already. Let Congress hold innefectual hearings and screw up their approval ratings.

Contempt of Congress? Just order the Justice Department not to enforce it. Special prosecutor? Executive privelege. Conviction? Commuted sentence, followed by a full pardon at the end of the term. What will they do? Appeal to the Supreme Court? Ummmm... HELLO. That's not going to work!

Bush is unpopular - Gonzales is unpopular. Short of impeachment (which is essentially an impossibility, and would REALLY make Congress look innefectual), there is no way to remove an executive branch appointee.

Just keep watching the clock.

 

The amazing thing to me regarding any of these trials and accusations... How the heck do they recall details of meetings and conversations that happened 3 years ago. That's all these people do, meetings, conversations, phone calls, media talks, etc...

Ask me to go under oath and talk about some lines of code I wrote in 2004 and see how that goes. I wrote a lot then, I've been writing a bunch since, and I couldn't tell you about half the stuff I wrote yesterday, much less back then.

These guys have had thousands of meetings since this and are supposed to keep it all straight....

Could you?

If you want to ask me under oath what high school I went to, I can do that... What grade did I get in senior english? I'm not sure... What was my answer on question 3 of the Grapes of Wrath Exam? Definately don't know that one...

Did we read Grapes of Wrath in senior english in high school, or was that Junior or Sophomore year? I'm pretty sure we read it somewhere in there...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FiftyOneMPG @ Jul 26 2007, 09:32 AM) [snapback]485354[/snapback]</div>

Under normal conditions, I'd agree with you. I don't even remember what I had for dinner last Tuesday. HOWEVER ...

There's a 4-page memo that shows what the meeting was about. You'd think he'd be aware of the memo and try to come up with something more credible than what looks like a flat-out lie.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Jul 26 2007, 08:49 AM) [snapback]485366[/snapback]</div>

Agreed... to some extent... Even if he had the Google Brothers in his back pocket, could he sift through all the memo's a guy like that's sent out over the last 15 years every time he is asked a question? It's not like he can put his life in a database and have code smart enough to pull up anything within reasonable context.. he'd have to have a pretty smart search algorithm to look over the thousands of memo's, documents, video statements, chatter in the mens room, and every word he's spoken or written in 2, 4, 8 years...

At least the press or congress aids or whoever tied this all together had a chance to run out and match it all up to find where he missed it. They get this done in a day or few days or even over months and all of the sudden these guys are "Lieing under oath".. Maybe they were, but how the heck could you keep it straight if you were just aiming to tell the truth.

Maybe these type of people should answer "Give me a 48 hr recess to review my life and I'll be back with your answer", or.... "Why don't you tell me what the memo says since you're trying to have me remember it right off the top of my head?"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FiftyOneMPG @ Jul 26 2007, 10:03 AM) [snapback]485372[/snapback]</div>

Ahh ... the "he's only human" defense.

Look, if all these people had access to the memo, then Gonzalez's people had access to it, too. And if he didn't know something like this would come up, then he was either overly sure that no one knew about it or woefully unprepared. Neither is a good thing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FiftyOneMPG @ Jul 26 2007, 09:32 AM) [snapback]485354[/snapback]</div>

What grade someone read The Grapes of Wrath in high school is a spurious analogy. A better one might be where they were and what they were doing when JFK was shot or when they found out about the 9/11 attacks. Most people can remember those events in vivid detail.

The point is, the topic being investigated would seem to be one of some significance. It's not a routine, mundane subject that a person like Gonzales, a person one would hope has some impressive cognitive skills (given the importance of his position).

"Warrantless wiretaps? Gosh, that was such a trivial matter that I really don't recall much about any meetings or memos about it..." just doesn't sound too believable coming from the Attorney General of the United States.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FiftyOneMPG @ Jul 26 2007, 08:32 AM) [snapback]485354[/snapback]</div>

That is why last time he answered "I don't recall" or "I don't remember" to most of the questions last time. This time around he was sent a list of all the question ahead of time so he could be prepared to answer them.

When you are talking about what happened in an official meeting there is not reason to say "I don't recall" when asked a question ahead of time. There is an official transcript of the meeting that you can look at and see exactly what you said and what happened.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Jul 26 2007, 09:26 AM) [snapback]485389[/snapback]</div>

To have probably upwards of 50 to 100 meetings about this before someone decided to go ahead with it... and then recall what was said at which meeting? Who was in the meeting(this one, not that other one)? For me, it's impressive if they can look all this up, much less recall it when asked at the congressional session.

I guess if I were him, I'd go for a round of golf, show up at the hearing with my cleats still on and repeat "I'm not exactly sure of the exact details so I can't give you an answer on that one"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 25 2007, 06:48 PM) [snapback]485166[/snapback]</div>

Hillary Clinton can't recall (how she made $100,000 on cattle futures or what she did for the Rose law firm)

Bill Clinton did not have sexuall relations . . . . with that woman . . . Monica Lewinsky.

The only reason to get Gonzales on the stand was to find conficts in his statements. The President can fire any and all the federal prosectuters for ANY reason at ANY time. Even for partisan reasons, just as Janet Reno did when she took office and fired every Republican federal prosecutore. In contrast, Bush fired very few democrat federal prosecutors when he took office.

This is the reason no other official will appear before this congress.

At least they are busy and can't pass any more of their socialist legislation. (or amnesty)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Jul 26 2007, 09:26 AM) [snapback]485389[/snapback]</div>

We never read Grapes of Wrath in High School. We read Separate Peace, Sweet Thursday and Silas Marner plus a few others.

I was in fourth grade in San Jose when they announced JFK had been shot. They sent us home early. I lived on Flora Ave. There were no sidewalks from school to my house, only a dirt shoulder along the road and very tall trees that provided nice shade.

I was teaching at Clark Middle school. The VP stuck his head in my door before school started and said that terrorists had flown a plane into buildings in New York. I didn't believe it. When my prep period came I put on the TV and sure enough. I shut it off before the next class arrived and didn't mention anything all day. Of course, by the next day all of the students knew.

Gonzalez is lieing or stupid or both. It's probably the main criteria for appointment by the Bush Administration.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FiftyOneMPG @ Jul 26 2007, 12:22 PM) [snapback]485539[/snapback]</div>

He has a staff of dozens of people whose job it is to keep up on that type of thing. All the prep work is done before hand by others, the hearing is just the dog and pony show for the cameras.

 

A few years ago, I developed a method for determining when the bush administration was lying. It's proven accurate so far: I just wait for their lips to start moving and sure enough, LIE!

 

Hey,
what trial was there that convicted Gonzalez of lying??? Innocent until proven guilty libs!

Having said that, he is pretty evasive in his answers, but that is what happens when a smart guy (not really smart like John Roberts though) get up in front of some boobs who are asking pruely partisan questions trying to get a sound bite. Sen. Leaky is a horrific questioner and the result is Gonzalez's answers!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Jul 26 2007, 02:45 PM) [snapback]485623[/snapback]</div>

So he essentially has no idea what is going on in his office and at meetings?

To me this is the definition of an ineffective administrator.

He said that when he became ineffective at his job, he would step down.

I'd say that ship has sailed.