Gonzales Faces Tough Questions on Spying

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales insisted Monday that President Bush was "acting with authority" both under the Constitution and federal law in eavesdropping on Americans without warrants as part of the war on terror.

But his strong defense of Bush's program was challenged by Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who told Gonzales that even the Supreme Court had ruled that "the president does not have a blank check."

Specter suggested that the program's legality be reviewed by a special federal court.

"There are a lot of people who think you're wrong. What do you have to lose if you're right?" Specter asked Gonzales.
.....
Monday's hearing into the NSA program got off to a rocky start when Democrats protested that Gonzales should be given a sworn oath before testifying.

Leahy argued that Gonzales should be sworn in like any other witness. At the very least, Gonzales should be asked if he would volunteer to being sworn in, Leahy said.

"It's not up to him," said Specter, who was upheld by a quick party-line vote by the GOP-led committee.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-eavesdropping-congress,0,5863186.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

[savemefromdumbya]

1. Bush was not acting with authority - Gonzales should be fired

should have been indicted long before this

[Sadie5]

2. More of the same on their part

Just as they did with the oil execs, if you're not sworn in, then you can lie your ass off and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Another party line vote, they could care less about the crime.

[HuffleClaw]

3. erm, he wasn't sworn in?

oh what a crock. good lord.

[Mithras61]

4. Truly... Why do they have such a problem...

with requiring witnesses to be sworn in & required to tell the TRUTH?

[phantom power]

5. Astonishing, isn't it?

And let's all pause for a moment to reflect on the time that Bush himself appeared before comittee and also refused to testify under oath.

[Pachamama]

6. WTF? The Attorney General who is supposed to upholding the law of the US

doesn't have to swear in?

This is seriously effed up....I can't even believe its not mandatory....

[boobooday]

9. Yeah, what's the message there?

If he is going to tell the truth, there shouldn't be anything standing in the way of taking an oath, should there?

The only reason not to is because you are PLANNING to lie.

But then what else would we expect?

[Pachamama]

15. He obviously doesn't want his lies to be held against him later, making

him legally implicated if he is guilty of perjury....

I expect the truth...but what we get from these people are only lies, lies and more lies....

[0007]

12. Didn't Janet Reno take the oath every time the repukes wanted to question

her?

[Pachamama]

16. I remember her taking the oath....that is why I just assumed it was

required....I am shaking as I listen to this exchange (if that's what you can call the soft-ball statements/questions that the fascist pig Sessions is asking Gonzales right now). And then to have heard the questions that Sen. Feinstein asked and heard his refusal to answer....I'm shaking...:scared:

[VegasWolf]

7. Oil and water -- Republicans and truth. nt

[alarcojon]

10. Double standard

The rethugs will whine to high heaven that "if you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of"? If Gonzalez has nothing to hide, at the very least he should have to take an oath to tell the fucking truth.

To do otherwise sends a message that Bush and his henchmen/women are above the law and we are supposed to just trust them. Well, fuck that just on general principles, and FAR more so given the track record of this pack of liars.

[leftchick]

18. welcome to the fascist state of ameriKa

:cry:

[Eikon]

8. Some guy yelled that he was a fascist and was escorted out

[wordpix]

11. this whole admin seems to admire the fascists and heading there or already

ARE there.

[OKthatsIT]

13. TOUGH? Since when is testifying without being sworn in, TOUGH?

[libertypirate]

19. Might as well call it authorized to lie!

[OKthatsIT]

14. SO, did the Senators groom Gonzales before the Hearing?

Like they did ALITO?

Sure does look like it to me. Sen Sessions sounds like he and Gonzales are reading from the same script.

[SemperEadem]

17. Is it me

or is Gonzales basically telling the Senators "Yeah, me and my boy don't give a f^(k if you don't like it... we're doing it anyway" ?

He can't even give a simple "yes" or "no"... yet, he indicted himself and his boy.

but hey--at least gays can't marry.

[boddhi]

20. why wasn't gonzales sworn in?

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113803860071853820.html?mod=todays_free_feature

The Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing Monday on President Bush's domestic spying program turned contentious almost immediately.


he hearing erupted into partisan fighting as Democrats questioned Chairman Arlen Specter's decision not to require Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to be sworn in. Sen. Russ Feingold opened the questioning and Sen. Patrick Leahy pushed Specter to swear in the witness, especially since the attorney general said he didn't mind.


Specter responded: "Attorney General Gonzales is not the chairman. I am and I make the rules." But Democrats pressed for a roll-call vote and then questioned a proxy vote by a staffer for Republican Sen. Sam Brownback. With Republicans in the majority, it looked like Democrats would lose. Leahy argued that Republicans repeatedly required former Attorney General Janet Reno to be sworn when she would testify during the Clinton administration.

[Burried News]

21. Because Libby was ... look at the mess he's in.

[BlueEyedSon]

22. To avoid a perjury rap.

[htuttle]

23. A proxy vote from a staffer for Brownback during a roll-call vote?

Can they DO that? Can they actually do that?

[iconoclastNYC]

24. Why does the press allow them to get away with it?

How does the MSM let the Republicans have a pass on this. Can you imagine this during the Clinton administration, under a Democratic Congress? The double standard is appalling.

[Whoa_Nelly]

25. You still have time to change the subject line of your post to reflect the

actual headline per LBN rules.

[dchill]

26. For the same reason....

Bush and Cheney weren't

[DemInDistress]

27. Weren't CEO's of Big Oil granted that same perk by lunatic Stevens?

a serious doule standard exists in America today what was good for the goose is no longer acceptable for the gander,,shame on those gopers. The revolution the new civil war will soon begin..I'm against them..anyone with me?

[Exiled in America]

29. Yep.

[azurnoir]

28. So he

doesn't have to hide behind "national security" or take the fifth he can straight up lie with impunity. Which makes the "hearings" worthless except as a wright wing pundits talking point "see we win again" without ever saying why.