Russ Feingold at TPM - The Liar AG

[TacticalPeek]

WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

By Russ Feingold

snip

At yesterday’s hearing, I reminded the Attorney General about his testimony during his confirmation hearings in January 2005, when I asked him whether the President had the power to authorize warrantless wiretaps in violation of the criminal law. We didn't know it then, but the President had authorized the NSA program three years before, when the Attorney General was White House Counsel. At his confirmation hearing, the Attorney General first tried to dismiss my question as "hypothetical" before stating "it's not the policy or the agenda of this President to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes." Yesterday, he tried to claim that he had told the truth at that hearing, bringing the parsing of words to new lows. I think it is clear that the Attorney General misled the Committee and the public not only about the NSA wiretapping program but about his views on presidential power. That broader issue was central to the debate over his nomination.

The Attorney General's lack of candor adds to the already mounting credibility problem that this Administration faces. One of the things I tried to do in my second round of questions yesterday was to point out how incomplete and misleading the President's comments on the NSA program in the State of the Union address were.

This administration reacts to anyone who questions this illegal program by saying that those of us who demand the truth and stand up for our rights and freedoms somehow has a pre-9/11 world view. In fact, the President has a pre-1776 world view. Our government has three branches, not one. And no one, not even the President, is above the law.

Feb 7, 2006 -- 11:41:35 AM EST


http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/26336


Plant Bush in the stockade!

[splat@14]

1. I missed Feingold yesterday during the replay, hope it makesC&L

Kick and voted

[TacticalPeek]

2. Attorney General John Mitchell and his lawyers contemplating prison.

Just a friendly reminder, Alberto.

[Vinca]

3. Was Gonzo under oath at his confirmation hearing?

If so, can't charges be brought against him for lying?

[kiteinthewind]

4. Nope! Specter apparently decided it wasn't necessary?

:think:

[glitch]

5. Of course not! Oaths are for people intending to tell the truth. LIARS

won't take them.

[Justice Is Comin]

6. The problem is proving the lie.

It has to clear, convincing and to the exclusion of any other sole response which would leave no doubt to a reasonable person.

That's why there are so few perjury prosectutions, let alone successful prosecutions. Perjury requires four elements.

1. oath

2. intent ...This is the tough one to prove.

3. false representation

4. Must be material.


The fact he was not under oath is not dispositive. He could still be prosecuted under False Statements Act. It has an even lower burden of proof and up to five years in prison. You don't have to prove intent to dececeive. But you still face difficulties. It has to be a black and white showing of a lie with no other explanation.

[jsamuel]

7. Thanks for keeping us updated Russ!