# Gonzalez may have lied to Congress; Dem calls for special prosecutor **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 10, 2007, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261 "2007-07-10T21:05:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2007, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261/81 "2007-07-28T21:52:48Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Sure he did. Perjury that derails a misdemeanor shoplifting case is less objectionable than perjury that derails a murder case. But no perjury is acceptable from a public official. [/quote] I disagree. Perjury is only as important as what’s being lied about. Not all lying is equal just like not all theft is equal. > [@](#): > > Unless you’re hanging your hat on “he was never convicted, and thus entitled to a presumption of innocence,” (and if you are, then, hey, Gonzales hasn’t been convicted either) this sentence shows why I dislike “the Left.” It perfectly exemplifies the hypocrisy that I believe permeates a certain slice of the left here. You know and I know Clinton lied under oath. You know and I know Gonzales lied under oath. No. I am not basing my statement on a lack of conviction. It is my contention that a.) the question was not material and therefore could not elicit a perjurous answer regardless of whether the answer was truthful and b.) he did not technically lie under oath in any case. The question was phrased in such a way that “no” was a technically truthful answer. You can’t say it’s perjurous just because a witness fails to volunteer information he wasn’t asked about. > [@](#): > > You squirm, split hairs, and wriggle frantically in order to excuse your guy from a harsh judgement. When it’s my guy on the firing range, you’re pulling the trigger. Your standards change based on who is accused. My guy was innocent, for one thing and for another the circumstances just don’t bear any comparison. Failing to volunteer information about an immaterial blowjob during a deposition for a meritless, politically motivated civil lawsuit does not bear comparison to what’s currently going on in the Justice Department. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2007, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261/82 "2007-07-28T22:07:08Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] I disagree. Perjury is only as important as what’s being lied about. Not all lying is equal just like not all theft is equal. No. I am not basing my statement on a lack of conviction. It is my contention that a.) the question was not material and therefore could not elicit a perjurous answer regardless of whether the answer was truthful and b.) he did not technically lie under oath in any case. The question was phrased in such a way that “no” was a technically truthful answer. You can’t say it’s perjurous just because a witness fails to volunteer information he wasn’t asked about. [/quote] “The question?” There wasn’t just one question. But here’s one example. The definition that Clinton was supposedly scrupulously observing was “contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of a person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.” Monica testified that Clinton touched her breasts. That was specifically covered by the definition. And how about the “were you ever alone with her?” / “I don’t recall.” Since he knew precisely what he had done with her, he KNEW he had been alone with her, and saying he didn’t recall was a lie. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2007, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261/83 "2007-07-28T22:42:34Z")
Why do you think he wasn’t convicted of perjury, **Bricker**? It was obviously a lie, but could they prove it was a lie? And did it meet all standard for perjury? I’m curious about your opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2007, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261/84 "2007-07-28T22:48:25Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] “The question?” There wasn’t just one question. But here’s one example. The definition that Clinton was supposedly scrupulously observing was “contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of a person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.” Monica testified that Clinton touched her breasts. [/quote] Do you have some proof that Clinton touched her breasts? he denied that to the Grand Jury. > [@](#): > > And how about the “were you ever alone with her?” / “I don’t recall.” > > Since he knew precisely what he had done with her, he KNEW he had been alone with her, and saying he didn’t recall was a lie. Was this a Grande Jury question or a depositionquestion. In the deposition it was immaterial, therefore not capable of eliciting a perjurous answer. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2007, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261/85 "2007-07-28T22:53:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Don’t know where you got the impression that I didn’t. Yes, that lying creep deserved his sentence. Fair 'nough, and glad to hear it. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2007, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261/86 "2007-07-28T22:58:29Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Sure he did. [/quote] Where was the conviction? Same place as the _charge_? Neevr-Never Land? :dubious: > [@](#): > > Unless you’re hanging your hat on “he was never convicted, and thus entitled to a presumption of innocence” Oooh, those legal technicalities … Mighty inconvenient sometimes, aren’t they? We expect the head of the Department of Justice to uphold _justice_, to serve the Constitution rather than the President. We’ve known all along he hasn’t teen doing that. But you’ve been defending him right up until the point where applying the Clinton Did It Too standard, where the \*letter \* of the law begins to be infringed long after the spirit of the law has been beaten and left to die on the side of the road, finally no longer lets you ignore it. You congratulate yourself for lack of hypocrisy only because you apply a sufficiently narrow, bloodless, tehcnical, justice-flouting standard rather than a moral-principle standard. Don’t be miffed at being called on it. How’s that “restoring honor and dignity to the White House” stuff workin’ ouit for youse guys lately? Ain’t it amazin’ how saying “Clinton did it too” is now \*supporting \* your guy? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2007, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261/87 "2007-07-28T23:35:19Z")
[QUOTE=Zoe] Why do you think he wasn’t convicted of perjury, **Bricker**? It was obviously a lie, but could they prove it was a lie? And did it meet all standard for perjury? I’m curious about your opinion. [/QUOTE] I think his agreement to surrender his law license as punishment was considered sufficient. It was obviously a lie, and it did meet the standard for perjury. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2007, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261/88 "2007-07-28T23:39:50Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Do you have some proof that Clinton touched her breasts? he denied that to the Grand Jury. [/quote] See what I mean? Do you have some proof that Gonzales lied? He denies it. I am willing to admit, though, that even though there’s no proof Gonzales lied, it’s pretty obvious to me that he did. It’s at least as obvious that Clinton lied. Monica testified that he touched her breasts. I believe her, since that version makes sense to me, and Clinton’s denial would have him sitting there unmoving while she touched him. Possible, yes. Not very likely. Just like it’s possible, but not very likely, that Gonzales is telling the truth. > [@](#): > > Was this a Grande Jury question or a depositionquestion. > > In the deposition it was immaterial, therefore not capable of eliciting a perjurous answer. Grand Jury. And your idea that the deposition questions weren’t material is wrong. In fact, the standard for questions in a deposition are LOOSER than what might be allowed at trial. And the deponent commits perjury if he lies. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2007, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261/89 "2007-07-29T00:15:19Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] **Frank** , how “difficult” is it to realize that one can’t think of even a threadbare excuse to support one’s own team anymore? How difficult is it to say the right thing when there is nothing else left one \*can \* say? [/QUOTE] **Bricker** is scrupulously applying the same moral standards to politicians whose views he supports and to politicians whose views he opposes. Maybe it wasn’t difficult; maybe his moral code is so absolute that it is a slam-dunk for him. It was difficult for me to admit that Clinton committed perjury. Perhaps I was projecting my experience on **Bricker**. On reviewing the rest of the thread, I see no way any reasonable person cannot accept that Clinton committed perjury. Mind you, I do not believe - given the case, and given the circumstances - that it merited impeachment, but still, he did. Surrending his law license was probably an appropriate punishment. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2007, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261/90 "2007-07-29T05:59:09Z")
This is why I find the right so distasteful. When my guy lies about a blowjob that had nothing to do with the reason for the investigation against him, you expect everyone to treat him like your guy, who’s lying about a plot to overthrow a department of the government in order to prevent investigations of voter fraud and election rigging. And you’re calling US the hypocrites! Jesus, man, think about what you’re saying. Do you really hold the crimes that it appears Gonzo committed and the lie about the blowjob to the same standard? Does severity of the crime mean nothing to you? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2007, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261/91 "2007-07-29T07:46:57Z")
[QUOTE=Mosier] And you’re calling US the hypocrites! Jesus, man, think about what you’re saying. Do you really hold the crimes that it appears Gonzo committed and the lie about the blowjob to the same standard? Does severity of the crime mean nothing to you? [/QUOTE] I have a hard time believing that Bricker personally buys his own bullshit. He assumes his Lawyer Persona for the SDMB, and it’s kind of like arguing with a robot. Technically correct, but cold, calculating, and heartless nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2007, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261/92 "2007-07-29T08:11:59Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] See what I mean? Do you have some proof that Gonzales lied? He denies it. I am willing to admit, though, that even though there’s no proof Gonzales lied, it’s pretty obvious to me that he did. [/QUOTE] Let’s pretend for a moment that Gonzales was telling the truth, the fact that he put on such a pisspoor performance for the hearing says to me that he’s unfit for the job. If you’re the top lawyer in the land, and are going to be handling (in one form or another) some of the most important cases before the highest courts, then you’d goddamned well better be able to acquit yourself with distinction. Gonzales sat in front of a group of senators, many of whom are former prosecutors, and came off like a drooling idiot. If that’s the best he can manage, then how can we trust _any_ decision the man makes? Even his selection of attorney to argue a case in court is questionable. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2007, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261/93 "2007-07-29T11:14:03Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] There is no virtue that cannot become a vice if overused. President Bush has proven that “loyalty” is no exception to that rule. [/QUOTE] Nor aught so good but strain’d from that fair use, revolts from true birth, stumbling on abuse: Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied; And vice sometimes by action dignified. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2007, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261/94 "2007-07-29T11:38:16Z")
[QUOTE=Mosier] And you’re calling US the hypocrites! Jesus, man, think about what you’re saying. Do you really hold the crimes that it appears Gonzo committed and the lie about the blowjob to the same standard? Does severity of the crime mean nothing to you? [/QUOTE] Do you have any clue what the word “hypocrite” means? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2007, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261/95 "2007-07-29T12:10:27Z")
In this context, it means Republican. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2007, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261/96 "2007-07-29T16:26:26Z")
It appears that it was data mining that was the contentious issue back in 2004. > [@](#): > > [Mining of Data Prompted Fight Over Spying](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/washington/29nsa.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1185726022-4K3QiI8/0xU5NggUBaIkqg) > > WASHINGTON, July 28 — A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, according to current and former officials briefed on the program. > > \ > > The N.S.A.’s data mining has previously been reported. But the disclosure that concerns about it figured in the March 2004 debate helps to clarify the clash this week between Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senators who accused him of misleading Congress and called for a perjury investigation. > > \ > > If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales’ defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct. Assuming this is true, I don’t see how a perjury charge could stick for this particular issue. It does seem that AG was being deliberately evasive, and it does seem that Mueller was trying to get Jackson-Lee to delve deeper. I think the perjury charge has a much better chance of sticking over the Attorney firings than this testimony. And while AG has become so ineffective that he really should resign, I just don’t see that happening. Not yet. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2007, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261/97 "2007-07-29T17:10:34Z")
[QUOTE=Frank] **Bricker** is scrupulously applying the same moral standards to politicians whose views he supports and to politicians whose views he opposes. [/quote] Where do you see \*morality \* in there? :dubious: He’s making a show of applying the same \*narrowly technical \* standards, and merely equating them with moral ones. Don’t fall for it. When, in fact, do we ever see him draw a distinction between the letter and spirit of the law, or even acknowledge that there is such a distinct thing as the spirit of the law at all? > [@](#): > > I see no way any reasonable person cannot accept that Clinton committed perjury. Misleading statements under oath /= perjury. Been over that many times. > [@](#): > > Surrending his law license was probably an appropriate punishment. Given that it was purely a symbolic act, unlike the political effort using the force of the law contrary to its spirit to find something to get him for, you’re probably right. > [@John Mace](#): > > Assuming this is true Given the source, why should we? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2007, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261/98 "2007-07-29T17:20:36Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Given the source, why should we? [/QUOTE] You can choose to believe it or not, but I think it offers an explanation to an otherwise confusing situation. Gonzales was technically correct in his answer, although his statement was misleading. Mueller was also correct, and that explains why he was reluctant to identify the program as the TSP, and kept referring to “an NSA program”. Also,t he data mining program was “much discussed” in the media. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2007, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261/99 "2007-07-29T17:44:34Z")
[Newt Endorses Giving Gonzo the Boot:](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291301,00.html) > [@](#): > > _Gingrich, today_: > Both the president and the country are better served if the attorney general is seen as a figure of probity and a figure of integrity and a figure of competence. > > And sadly, the current attorney general is not seen as any of those things. And I think that it’s a liability for the president. But more importantly, it’s a liability for the United States of America. > > And we’ve got to get beyond whether it helps the Democrats or helps Republicans and set a standard of does it help America. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2007, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261/100 "2007-07-29T18:05:14Z")
When _Gingrich_, the primary architect of the partisan poison that has governed GOP conduct in Congress in recent years, thinks something is _more important_ than what’s good for the Republicans and bad for the Democrats, better pay attention. Of course, he’d say the same thing under his usual partisan standard, too. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzalez-may-have-lied-to-congress-dem-calls-for-special-prosecutor/411261.md?page=6)