“If we tell the truth, the terrorists will kill us all!!!”
Hell, mebbe he didn’t lie. He certainly comes across as being rather clueless. (How many operations do you know of where the underlings regularly take it upon themselves to provide “clarifications” to the boss’s public statements? At one point during his testimony the other day, Speedy Gonzalez had to turn around and ask his aides what the operative statement was.)
Well, we know one thing about it, then: Valerie Plame’s not involved with it! 
Isn’t this all fairly irrelevant, seeing as if Congress actually manages to set in motion reasonable charges, and Berto gets convicted, he’s just going to get a pardon?
According to Article II, Section II, Clause I of the Constitution:
One he would have described as “much-discussed”? :dubious: Nope, only been one of those.
If he hasn’t done it yet, he won’t, the Rumsfeld precedent notwithstanding. He’d have to nominate a new AG, and one who’d recognize an oath to the Constitution, not the President if he wants to be confirmed. Bush *needs * Gonzo in office, to keep plugging as many cracks in the dam as he can.
I wasn’t referring necessarily to just *Gonzales * with the “I” word, of course. He’s just an example of the effects of the true source of the problem, not the problem itself. Replacing him with another toady won’t make a bit of real difference. Don’t get distracted by the daily news.
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?
What’s *difficult * is to *act * on such a conclusion, not simply add a tut-tut and leave it at that. It would be fine to give such a person credit for learning and growing if there is actual evidence of some learning and growing having taken place, but a helluva lot more credit is due to those who didn’t need to do any. Your support is misguided.
He actually won’t have to nominate a new AG for a while. Once Congress recesses, Gonzo can resign and Bush will make a recess appointment. That appointee will either not be submitted to or will not be confirmed by the Senate (with Republicans blocking cloture to ensure that he/she isn’t outright rejected) before the next recess, at which point the whole cycle will start over.
Two cycles and Bush is out of there…
Reid announced plans a few months ago to (formally) keep the Senate in session continuously, to prevent any more such fuck-you’s from Bush. All that means is having a Dem Senator who lives nearby come in every couple of weeks and gavel an empty chamber into order, but that’s all it takes.
Or it implies the existence of a classifed program, or it implies something else. I am unwilling to pile inference upon inference abd scream for Bush;s impeachment based on that set of inferences.
I do. I think he, too, has his biases, and that one of them arises from fierce loyalty. I think he’s wrong, but I think HE think Gonzales isn’t lying, in the same way that ten bystanders may look at a couple and say, “He’s cheating on her,” and the husband will refuse to believe it.
Right. Precise same logic here.
I would note, since you bring it up, that I am applying preciselythe same rules now as I did then.
Many other people seem to have discovered, now, a distaste for perjury that was completely absent during the Clinton fiasco.
Really? You supported the thirty-month prison sentence imposed on Libby for perjury, obstruction, and false statements, then? I was under a contrary impression, but I may well be wrong.
- Clinton did not commit perjury.
- Not all perjury is equal.
Depends on who was doing the discussion. “Much discusses” could refer to the folks in the administration. I think Mueller was just begging Jackson-Lee to delve deeper into the issue and figure out just which program Mueller was referring to. He clearly was not going to say “TSP”.
Perhaps we need to look at the possibility that it was Mueller who was committing perjury here, if perjury was committed at all. But frankly, I think both he and AG were being hyper-cautious about how they described things, and neither one of them was actually lying. I would say that AG is much more vulnerable to the perjury charge wrt his testimony on the attorney firings than on this.
Too late for the edit function, but that was supposed to be:
Depends on who was doing the discussing. “Much discussed”…
Please, John. Here’s Mueller’s testimony:
Yes, he was picking his words carefully, obviously to avoid throwing his teammate Gonzales under the bus. There’s no likelihood of there being *another * NSA program they just forgot to mention even to Congress before, or that either man just forgot about it instead of asking for a closed session, is there? Let’s not disconnect ourselves from reality, okay? Even if Clinton did it too?
No, it looks like he wanted to throw Gonzales under the bus, but he didn’t want to perjure himself in the process. Otherwise, he would’ve just said: Yes, it was the TSF. Mueller is no friend of Gonzales’, that much is clear.
There is every likelihood that there were any number of secret programs that these guys are not at liberty to discuss.
I’m quite well grounded in reality, thank-you-very-much, and this has nothing to do with Clinton.
Personally, I don’t think that pile is very large. Could we agree on the following?
Sufficient evidence does not yet exist to remove the president. However, the facts that we now know leave enough reasonable suspicion of presidential wrongdoing that further congressional investigation to this end is both necessary and appropriate.
We set such a low bar for that jerk. If your kid tried that crap you would send him out to cut a switch. The guy is dancing around, smirking and lying . He is quibbling like a child. I expect more from my pols. Apparently if you get away with it ,it is true enough.
Don’t know where you got the impression that I didn’t. Yes, that lying creep deserved his sentence.
Sure he did.
True. 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.
Now, let’s go back to to this, because it explains why I believe I am better than you about things like this:
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.
I admit it, and I call for Gonzales’ ouster, because to me, applying the standard equally is more important than favoring my ideological allies. (And I would note as well that no one who believe he should lie under oath is my ideological ally anyway).
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.