SENATORS SIGNAL GONZALES PERJURY over Spying Testimony

[KoKo]

By Spencer Ackerman and Paul Kiel - July 24, 2007, 2:33 PM

The Senate Judiciary Committee will review Alberto Gonzales' past statements to determine whether Gonzales lied to the committee in 2006 by saying there had been no internal Justice Department dissent over the legality of the president's Terrorist Surveillance Program (otherwise known as the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program). When confronted by the senators, Gonzales today offered a surprising explanation of his consistency and veracity: he repeatedly suggested there's a different intelligence program, other than the TSP, that Justice Department officials found legally dubious in 2004. If Gonzales is telling the truth, he just disclosed the existence of a previously unknown intelligence program. If not, the embattled attorney general could be in some serious legal jeopardy.

Gonzales's "no-dissent" testimony sought to assure outraged Senators that the Justice Department had complete confidence in the controversial warrantless surveillance program known as the TSP, which was first disclosed by the New York Times in December 2005. But that line was cast into serious doubt by ex-Deputy Attorney General James Comey's May testimony that he thought the TSP was illegal during a stint as acting attorney general in March 2004. Indeed, the top echelon of Justice Department leadership was prepared to resign over the president's decision to continue a surveillance program without Department authorization.

Today, Gonzales did something absolutely unexpected: he said that Comey's doubts were about "other intelligence activities" than the warrantless surveillance program President Bush confirmed in December 2005 -- i.e., the TSP. That's how his 2006 statement that the TSP was uncontroversial could still be correct.

But the senators weren't buying it. And they say that they'll be examining Gonzales' statements closely to see whether the attorney general has perjured himself.

MORE WITH VIDEO LINKS TO WATCH AT..........

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003765.php

[Richard Steele]

1. The Attorney General has perjured himself. Several times. And that's all there is to it. nm

Editted fer spellin.

[napi21]

5. In most instances you just can't PROVE IT!

Listen to him carefully. He prefaces EVERYTHING with "as I recall", "I don't remember for sure", "to the best of my recolection". No matter what he says after that cannot be proven as a LIE! THAT'S why when he answered with a straight foreward "YES" today was so stunning!

[aquart]

9. Let's go back over "reasonable doubt."

According to your Republican-schooled reasoning, only a confession sworn on a Bible with the Pope in attendance constitutes proof. And even then it won't work if he crosses his fingers behind his back.

Bunk. When a liar is contradicted by the testimony of numerous others, a REASONABLE human being can assume the liar lied. When a liar is contradicted by only one other, it does NOT mean either one could be right so no decision can be made. It DOES mean that a reasonable human being must decide which testimony is more credible.

Because the liar says he doesn't remember does NOT mean you are obligated to believe him. Legally or any other way.

[napi21]

11. OH PLEASE! I'm the fartherest thing you'll find from a PUB!

I based my statements on legal experience. NO, I'm not a lawyer, but I've worked with lawyers for many years, and when someone couches their statements with "as best I can recall" you CANNOT prove what he said was a lie! Yes, it's playing with words the same as BC was playing with them when he said "it depends on what the meaning of the word IS is."

That's the way things work in our legal system, and it has absolutely NOthING to do with Parties!

[Toots]

16. We know that but do you believe anything will come of it?

I don't...

[Richard Steele]

19. I honestly think it's becoming more likely every day.

Exactly -HOW- likely it is, I'm not really in a position
to guess. But I'm growing more hopeful.

These things simply CANNOT continue forever, you know.
One way or another, this has to come to a head. SOMETHING
is gonna be resolved, somehow...and we are gonna see it.

[KansDem]

2. Quick!!!, commute his sentence, whatever it might be!

...because Bush will no doubt consider it "excessive." :crazy:

[The Wizard]

3. Impeachment can't be commuted (NT)

[Supersedeas]

15. Soon the questioning itself will be deemed excessive and all oversight will be commuted

[Mandate My Ass]

4. What's to fucking examine? He's lied about everything he was ever asked.

Everything. Excuse my french, but :wtf:

[dkofos]

6. Gonzo will have to sit in the corner now for two hours, and gets one

slap on each hand, for not telling the truth.

[Disturbed]

8. Perjury is such a quaint concept.

Rethugs do not lie. They mis-speak. Mis-speaking is so common these days that it warrants no accountability, rebuke or negative retort.

[mod mom]

7. How many lies, answered by letters instead of concrete action? Leahy, Specter

and others told how the DoJ has been reduced to a farce under Abu's LACK OF LEADERSHIP. Enough already!!

[catmandu57]

10. Yep enough is enough

Go get this smarmy bastard lock him up, then we'll see how quickly this misadministration falls apart.

[burythehatchet]

12. The attorney general's suits are woven with the finest perjury

I actually doubt his name is Alberto Gonzales, as he claims.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

13. Ummm,...YUMMM!!! There is some pretty meaty stuff in that pathological liar's testimony.

Amazing. Complete confidence on the one hand and "other intelligence activities" on the other. Meanwhile, people are looking to get the hell out of 'something' that appeared obviously questionable, to them, showing NO CONFIDENCE?

The webs these effers weave,...eventually pushes them back into a corner. GAWD!!! I can NOT fathom the absolute corruption of this administration. It is beyond comprehension. And, they are still in control!!! YIKES!!!!

[ThomWV]

14. I Just Went Back and Read Comey's Testimony

Although the newspaper accounts presumed he was talking about the warantless wiretapping program Mr. Comey was very clean in saying that he would not say what program they were talking about other than it was one that already existed and needed to be reauthorized.

So just how many supersecret programs are there anyway? I ask because if there is more than one then maybe the place to look for perjury is not in previous testimony to the Judiciary Committees, but maybe its hidden in testimony to the Intelligence committees. The better question might be what program(s) have been completely hidden from Congressional review?

[Hubert Flottz]

17. Recall ex-Deputy Attorney General James Comey and ask him

if there was another program that he was worried about...

[loudsue]

18. One of the senators brought up a "pattern of deceit and obfuscation"

and it sounded to me like they were going to over-rule Gonzo's "if I recall" type of answers when they go for perjury. Finegold, in particular, sounded like he'd had it, and Leahy just made it sound a little more tenative. My guess is, they're going to get Gonzo. He's made a mockery of the entire justice dept., and THAT is a sacred cow to many members of congress.

:kick::kick::kick:

[The Stranger]

20. Reason Number 5,429,205 to impeach.

Tell me again why the Democrats are shirking their responsbility to the Nation and any accountability to their Base?

[wiggs]

21. Why not impeachment for Gonzales? What more could he possibly do

to deserve impeachment...what more do we need to know? Isn't it clear?

Why perjury or contempt charges that will take a year or more to resolve? What we want is someone more qualified in that office!

Anyway...what are the reasons given for not impeaching Gonzales?

[KoKo]

22. Important......