Gonzales Perjury Investigation: Dead?
Regarding Alberto Gonzales’s testimony, John Hinderaker argues:
[T]here is nothing “narrowly crafted,” “legalistic” or “technically correct” about Gonzales’s testimony. It was truthful and fully accurate. He said that the legal controversy did not involve the program that was confirmed by President Bush, in which international communications where one party was associated with al Qaeda were intercepted. That is exactly what the Times reported today. The controversy involved a completely different program, which has been rumored but which the administration has never publicly confirmed. Yet the Times cannot bring itself to admit that Gonzales has been vindicated, and the Senators who called for a perjury investigation have been made to look foolish.
John also points out a false factual assertion in the New York Times coverage of the controversy.
Meanwhile, here is the entirety of Kevin Drum’s “analysis” regarding the Administration’s defense of Gonzales:
Give me a break. Are these guys serious?
Which you do agree with? Power Line’s detailed analysis — or Kevin Drum’s contentless outburst?
I feel certain that your answer depends on your politics.
P.S. Keep in mind that Power Line’s analysis depends on the veracity of anonymous sources that may have an agenda.
If those anonymous sources are correct, however, Democrats will need more than Drum-style grunts of indignation to justify a perjury investigation.
Wrong. I don’t have a clue. Evidence is evidence. Unless there’s evidence he lied, he told the truth. I’m willing to follow the dots, but not assume just because someone’s accused him.
I’m not a Gonzales fan, but I don’t hate the man either. I find it difficult to believe the AG of the USA is a bald faced liar, but I don’t find it impossible either.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 7/28/2007 @ 11:14 pmChristoph,
If you’re willing to be fair to the guy, it means you lean right.
Watch the left-leaning commenters here and see if even one of them is fair to him.
Patterico (8ff822) — 7/28/2007 @ 11:26 pmI’d be fair to Hillary Clinton and often am. So what does that make me?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 7/28/2007 @ 11:28 pmHeck, I was vigorously defending Markos MMoulitsas Zúniga here the other day if I recall correctly.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 7/28/2007 @ 11:35 pmI dunno. Kevin Drum’s analysis had much more feeling and emotion in it. It was almost like that question mark was a ‘?!’ instead. You get bonus points for being emotional, right?
Kevin (1c20c1) — 7/29/2007 @ 12:13 amPerjury?
*yawn*
Willard: Charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500.
alphie (015011) — 7/29/2007 @ 2:47 amHe either committed perjury or he merely dodged and weaved like a criminal defendant in a jury trial. And he did all this as the attorney general of the united states testifying before congress.
Here’s some fun and theres a lot more where that came from. He should be impeached just for the visit to the Ashcroft’s hospital room.
Nice try, but this is heating up, not cooling down.
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/29/2007 @ 6:03 amWhich you do agree with? Power Line’s detailed analysis — or Kevin Drum’s contentless outburst?
Is this a trick question? 🙂
Paul (8077b1) — 7/29/2007 @ 6:04 amWatch the left-leaning commenters here and see if even one of them is fair to him.
Already caught AF with that one!
Paul (8077b1) — 7/29/2007 @ 6:06 amAnonymous Liberal has a take from Friday.
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/
AL also commented yesterday,
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/07/data-mining.html
”
Let me start by pointing out what seems to be a flaw in this argument. For this defense to even arguably work, it has to be true that Comey and Goldsmith’s objections were limited to data-mining activities and in no way pertained to any of the activities the President confirmed in December of 2005. But this graf from the Post piece seems to undercut that claim:
One source familiar with the NSA program said yesterday that there were widespread concerns inside the intelligence community in 2003 and 2004 over how much Internet and telephone data mining could occur, as well as about the NSA’s direct intercepts of communications without court approval.”
No one is saying the WH doesn’t have competent counsel. But it IS just reverse engineering
Gonzaliarz previous statements to somehow glean
some credibility.
BTW; Patterico: Where you invited to the WH with Hinderaker and RightWing Bloggers to be fed this
Semanticleo (4741c2) — 7/29/2007 @ 6:27 amcrap-filled talking point?
i agree with christoph in #1. i don’t like the bush administration, but i have to see evidence before convicting someone of perjury. two other points:
1. gonzalez has been politically emasculated. there’s about 18 months left on the bushclock and no guarantee his successor wouldn’t be worse. do we really want him out?
2. views were recently expressed on this blog that congress couldn’t force a u.s. attorney to prosecute harriet miers for contempt against the wishes of the administration. if this is true, the administration will not likely approve of prosecuting gonzalez either, so talking about it is a waste of time.
assistant devil's advocate (23702e) — 7/29/2007 @ 6:36 amGive me a break. Are these guys serious?
Translation: Doe anybody really think that the Democrats give a rat’s behind whether AG committed perjury? Heck, what the definition of “perjury” is, even? They’re going to be doing their best to dirty Gonzalez and by extension the President when our sun is going nova. They’ll find an inconsistent statement in a sneeze.
nk (1c6c66) — 7/29/2007 @ 6:43 amI think there’s a basic problem with the asymmetry between the Senators “asking questions” and the witnesses answering them. The Senators can and do also make statements, and they face no possibility of legal repercussions such as perjury charges even when their statements are demonstrably false, and anyone looking at the details can conclude they must know they are false, as well as essentially slanderous (that is, false and defamatory, but not legally slanderous both because of their immunity within Congress and the “public figure” rules).
I think Schumer has shown that he is far more deserving of formal sanction than is Gonzalez, but that of course isn’t going to happen (and wouldn’t, even if he were still in the minority).
Personally I would object to testifying before someone who has shown that he grandstands untruthfully, unless he also takes an oath to tell the truth, under penalty of perjury.
DWPittelli (2e1b8e) — 7/29/2007 @ 7:11 amNo one can explain to me why this is actually an issue. What business is it of Congress’ that there was a controversy within the administration over these programs, the only issue within the oversight of Congress is what the programs actually conducted – which was years ago disclosed to the relevant oversight committees.
The other amusing part of this silly tempest is that now Democrats are having to make out Ashcroft as the defender of liberty – Ashcroft as being assaulted by the evil minions within the administration. This must stick in the craw of them all.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/29/2007 @ 7:12 am“Ashcroft as the defender of liberty -”
This the era of lowered expectations.
Semanticleo (4741c2) — 7/29/2007 @ 7:25 am—He should be impeached just for the visit to the Ashcroft’s hospital room.
You must be a law enforcement authority AF. One that knows how to find a violation anywhere.
When ever I come to this site, you’ve posted a contentless assertion. Please provide the US Code to which a visit to a hospital room represents a violation.
red (9e9332) — 7/29/2007 @ 8:08 amFor those on the moonbat side of the continuum, it has now been revealed that the NSC was monitoring purely international calls. We were exploiting the fact that US telecommunications networks are an outsourced infrastructure for third world countries.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~“
This has turned out to be an enormous mistake that has unilaterally disarmed one of our best intelligence weapons in the war on terror. To understand why, keep in mind that we live in a world of fiber optics and packet-switching. A wiretap today doesn’t mean the FBI must install a bug on Abdul Terrorist’s phone in Peshawar. Information now follows the path of least resistance, wherever that may lead. And because the U.S. has among the world’s most efficient networks, hundreds of millions of foreign calls are routed through the U.S.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010389
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~“
Nice job on degrading our national security by fighting hard for non-existent privacy rights of those who want to kill us.
This will become a big issue in ’08 especially if the terrorists succeed between now and then.
red (9e9332) — 7/29/2007 @ 8:16 amGonzales offered to answer the Judiciary Committee’s questions on the NSA intercepts in executive session. As far as I can tell the Committee did not take him up on his offer. In other words they were interested in performing their customary roles as bullying windbags intent on embarrassing the Administration and seeking favorable mention in the MSM.
Stu707 (adbb5a) — 7/29/2007 @ 8:36 am–On Fox News Sunday this morning, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA) refused to defend Attorney General Alberto Gonzales against accusations that he may have perjured himself before Congress. “It’s very damaging…we badly need an attorney general who is above any question,” said Gingrich.
He continued: “Both the president and country are better served if the attorney general is a figure of competence. Sadly, the current attorney general is not seen as any of those things. I think it’s a liability for the president. More importantly, it’s a liability for the United States of America.”
Later in the show, host Chris Wallace revealed that no conservative would willingly defend Gonzales on Fox. “By the way, we invited White House officials and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to defend Attorney General Gonzales,” said Wallace. “We had no takers.”–
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/29/2007 @ 8:37 amAnother lefty commenter here. It’s logically possible that the hospital meeting wasn’t about the TSP, and it’s logically possible that Gonzales hasn’t perjured himself. Not enough facts to go on; and that’s reason to keep digging.
jpe (684e4e) — 7/29/2007 @ 8:44 amAF and Newt Gingrich: two people who deserve each other.
DubiousD (68da2e) — 7/29/2007 @ 8:44 amGonzales has shown himself inept but the circus in the Senate committee is just that, a political circus. They turned down an executive session, as noted above by Stu707. The attacks on the NSA program are because it is a Bush program. The Democrats don’t care about national security if only they can harrass Bush.
About Kevin Drum, I used to have a lot of confidence in his integrity although I disagreed with most of his opinions. He did a better job than the MSM in checking the Texas National Guard story and admitted that there was nothing there. Now, however, he no longer is in control of his own blog and the moderator now deletes comments that disagree with the far laft opinions there. I have Kevin’s e-mail address and asked him about it. He replied that he doesn’t moderate comments; someone else does. The only moderating he did before was to deal with spam. I don’t think that is a reliable blog anymore. It is becoming another Daily Kos. Too bad.
Mike K (86bddb) — 7/29/2007 @ 8:52 amNot perjury.
Gonzo wasn’t under oath when he originally claimed there was no internal dissent under questioning by Schumer. He’s lying his ass off though, and since Bush can’t afford to do the decent thing and replace him, Congress should impeach.
Spartacvs (63de58) — 7/29/2007 @ 8:58 amI would’ve too. IMHO, Gonzales and the exec branch attorneys will say virtually anything to get off the hot seat. One of the few tools available to get them saying anything even bordering on the honest and coherent is to get them under oath.
jpe (684e4e) — 7/29/2007 @ 9:36 am“Jack Goldsmith’s duty as head of the Office of Legal Counsel was to advise President Bush what he could and could not do…legally”
Amazon.com: The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration
By Jack L. Goldsmith
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/29/2007 @ 9:48 amMeanwhile, here is the entirety of Kevin Drum’s “analysis” regarding the Administration’s defense of Gonzales:
Give me a break. Are these guys serious?
Which you do agree with? Power Line’s detailed analysis — or Kevin Drum’s contentless outburst?
I feel certain that your answer depends on your politics.
Meanwhile, here is a lengthy analysis from Glenn Greenwald supporting the argument that the Bush administration leaked this story to the NYT to save Gonzales’ ass.
Which are you going to mention in your post? The one-line throwaway from kevin drum, or the lengthy, cogent analysis from glenn greenwald?
I feel certain that the answer depends on your politics.
Kathy (25b12b) — 7/29/2007 @ 10:45 amFirst of all, I think that charging Gonzolez with purjury for testimony before a committee is a BS tactic. Those committee questions are incredibly loaded, and are as often (or more so) about scoring political points in the asking of the question as they are about actual factfinding.
That said, my head spins every time I try to figure out what the administration isn talking about when it says anything at all about its seemingly endless assortment of “security” programs. And of course, it generally says nothing at all. You can’t charge them with perjury for not acknowledging a program — but we can and should throw the bums out on their ear, in my opinion, for what they’ve turned America into.
Here’s an example from Tony Snow at a press conference that almost made me laugh out loud — except for the fact that it’s so maddening to have such an out-of-control execitive branch, completely cut off from any accountability for what it’s doing:
Q So, okay, what you’re saying then is, when the Attorney General and Mueller were talking about — the consideration of the administration is that they were talking about two different things, because one of is before it was disclosed, and one was after?
MR. SNOW: No, let me just say — this is where — look, there are a broad range of intelligence activities that the government is involved in, and from time to time there are going to disputes about some of those intelligence activities. But again, what the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which I’ve defined very narrowly and carefully, there have been no disputes about that.
Q And the briefing in 2004 was about that program, or about something else?
MR. SNOW: Again, I don’t want to go too much into the briefing. The answer to your question is, yes.
Q About that program in a different iteration?
MR. SNOW: No, you asked a different question that I said yes to.
I feel like I need a shower when I read this. This is America? Since when does our government need to hide behind doublespeak like this? The terrorists are an excuse, not a reason.
Phil (88ab5b) — 7/29/2007 @ 11:06 amWhat you call doublespeak, Phil, I call attempting to protect ongoing classified programs.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/29/2007 @ 11:23 amPlease provide the US Code to which a visit to a hospital room represents a violation.
Comment by red — 7/29/2007 @ 8:08 am
This is like an argument from an 8th grade debate. (Don’t get me wrong; one of which the kid was really proud.)
SkippyFlipjack (c9a1e0) — 7/29/2007 @ 11:44 amKathy #26,
I’m curious how you found this website.
DRJ (bea74b) — 7/29/2007 @ 12:37 pmSchmucky’s golden boy Comey of Fitzfong fame appears to have seriously let him down by not specifying the intelligence program to which his dramatic hospital visit related during his May testimony.
The New York Times is backing the Gonzales version, which makes the Democratic senators and Rinos look like incredible idiots. It would be great if Comey comes back and confirms Gonzales’ facts as well.
Rove, you’re a genius!
daleyrocks (906622) — 7/29/2007 @ 12:38 pmYeah, Daley,
The people who watched Gonzales testify came away thinking the Senators were idiots.
No doubt Rove is using “The Math” to predict another Republican sweep next year, just like the last one.
alphie (015011) — 7/29/2007 @ 12:56 pmAlphie – Being a Republican yourself, as you so frequently claim, aren’t you all in favor of that? What am I missing?
daleyrocks (906622) — 7/29/2007 @ 1:12 pmI’m an atheist, daley.
I’m more of an atheist than I am a Republican.
That’s what you’re missing.
alphie (015011) — 7/29/2007 @ 1:20 pm“I feel certain that your answer depends on your politics.”
On the other hand, if your answer is based on each source’s track record for accuracy, intelligence, and vision, you’re going to pick Drum over Assraker any day of the week.
Oregonian (3a040e) — 7/29/2007 @ 1:54 pmthe lengthy, cogent analysis from glenn greenwald?
ROTFLMAO
nk (1c6c66) — 7/29/2007 @ 2:01 pmglenn who?
daleyrocks (906622) — 7/29/2007 @ 2:22 pmThis thread is shaping up about the way I figured it would. But it didn’t take Karnak to see that.
Patterico (730a58) — 7/29/2007 @ 2:27 pmSave this thread, so that when the next 9-11 comes, and the Dems begin to ask loudly why the dots were not connected, you can read about what they thought was important at this time, and how they tried to use the programs that gather the dots as bludgeons to discredit their politcal enemies.
How did one of our major parties turn into our enemies’ best ally, and our free press turn into our enemies’ most effective weapon?
sherlock (b4bbcc) — 7/29/2007 @ 2:28 pm“This thread is shaping up about the way I figured it would. But it didn’t take Karnak to see that.”
You set it up. DID you get the WH talking points?
Semanticleo (4741c2) — 7/29/2007 @ 2:43 pmNever mind. Hindy got em as your proxy.
Semanticleo (4741c2) — 7/29/2007 @ 2:44 pm“How did one of our major parties turn into our enemies’ best ally, and our free press turn into our enemies’ most effective weapon?”
When this trend began about a year ago, before the 2006 election, I got out my copy of “Alone,” Manchester’s biography of Churchill during the 30s. The BBC banned Churchill from the radio and The Times banned him from its pages. The upper class Englishmen and women (like Nancy Astor) were mildly pro-Nazi. The dynamics were strangely similar to what goes on now. The multi-culturalists have convinced themselves that western civilization is not worthy of defense. They know somewhere in their bones that the Islamic radicals will cut their heads off and return us to a new Dark Age but they don’t really think it will happen. In the meantime, they want to punish their parents for making this messy world that is not perfect, as it should be because they are baby boomers. Somewhere I read a comment about the present day English elites. Never before, it said, has the upper class adopted the manners and the speech patterns of the lower classes as something to be imitated. This self-hatred is unique in western history.
Now, a man in New York is to be prosecuted on two felony counts of puting a Koran in a toilet. How could we have fallen so far so fast?
Mike K (86bddb) — 7/29/2007 @ 3:28 pmHow is this for a source ?
“The program had different parts, but there was only one program,” Ms. Harman
Neo (cba5df) — 7/29/2007 @ 4:31 pmsaid, adding that Mr. Gonzales was “selectively declassifying information to
defend his own conduct,” which she called improper. Rep.
Jane Harman (D, CA) formerly the ranking member of the House Intel Committee.
And of course, Jane Harmon would not inject any partisanship into the controversy.
TMAC (0c909a) — 7/29/2007 @ 4:43 pmPatterico, @2: that’s a challenge, isn’t it? 🙂
I haven’t been following closely enough to judge, and so I would prefer not to. The media give the impression that one of the Attorney General or the FBI Director is lying, but there’s no way for me to tell which without walking through a bunch of documentary evidence that I have no interest in wading through. So my assessment is: if Congress thinks Gonzales lied, they can ask for a prosecution and/or impeach him, but he would deserve his day in court, and I’ll withhold judgement until then.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 7/29/2007 @ 5:04 pmThe Senate Democrats are purposely bringing this up in open session to continue their war on Bush. I wonder if the public, especially if Petraeus gets Iraq stabilized, will be willing to send this crowd back for another Congress in the majority. If the Republicans would start acting like an opposition in the earmarks controversy, maybe we’d see.
Mike K (86bddb) — 7/29/2007 @ 5:22 pm“that Mr. Gonzales was “selectively declassifying information to defend his own conduct,” which she called improper”
Great. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
He wasn’t “defend[ing] his own conduct”. He has to prove that he wasn’t committing perjury. Not conduct; perjury.
If he didn’t de-classify the information, Schumer and Leahy would be accusing him of covering up his lies.
He testified that he would discuss the matters in closed session but the Democrats wouldn’t allow him.
What the hell was he supposed to do?
If he doesn’t de-classify the information, he’s accused of perjury and of covering up his lies.
If he does de-classify the information, he’s accused or improper conduct.
This is nonsense on top of nonsense by the Democrats. Pure partisan pettiness. Not a shred – even a small one – of anything other than that.
SteveMG (d7e80d) — 7/29/2007 @ 6:19 pmRobin: All Snow had to do was say, “I can’t answer that.” Doublespeak, which is what he did utter, is for people who don’t respect their audience.
Mike K: especially if Petraeus gets Iraq stabilized As Touchstone said, there’s much virtue in an if.
And anyone who now decries perjury charges as being politically motivated had better not have supported the impeachment of one W.J. Clinton. Especially since the famous statement about the meaning of the word “is” was in fact narrowly crafted, legalistic, and technically correct.
My overall impression is that of Aphrael. The FBI director, according to my understanding of the story, contradicted the Attorney General directly on a matter of fact, so one or the other of them lied under oath. The question now is, which one?
kishnevi (6273ad) — 7/29/2007 @ 6:31 pmPlease provide the US Code to which a visit to a hospital room represents a violation.
This is like an argument from an 8th grade debate. (Don’t get me wrong; one of which the kid was really proud.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wacky AF said: He should be impeached just for the visit to the Ashcroft’s hospital room.
Until liberals, sorry progressives, began to distort the Consitituion, impeachable offenses had been defined as “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. I have often gone to hospital rooms and no one has accused me of a high crime.
Skippyflippyskipflip says this is like an 8th grade debate.
I say it is like being back in the locked psych ward when I was a psych grad student, but I don’t have to worry about being strangled by the moonbats….not yet.
Meanwhile, no one has responded to my post about the clear legality of the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program in view of the international telecommunications aspect.
Sherlock has it right, after the next attack these are the dots that people who aren’t covering their a#$(# will be resurrecting.
red (9e9332) — 7/29/2007 @ 6:52 pm…in fact narrowly crafted, legalistic, and technically correct.
Which is why lawyers are so roundly despised by the rest of us. Oh wait,… it depends on what the meaning of the word despised is.
red (9e9332) — 7/29/2007 @ 6:55 pmFBI Director Robert S. Mueller said Thursday the government’s terrorist surveillance program was the topic of a 2004 hospital room dispute between top Bush administration officials, contradicting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ sworn Senate testimony.
Mueller was not in the hospital room at the time of the dramatic March 10, 2004, confrontation between then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and presidential advisers Andy Card and Gonzales, who was then serving as White House counsel. Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee he arrived shortly after they left, and spoke with the ailing Ashcroft.
“Did you have an understanding that that the conversation was on TSP?” asked Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas. TSP stands for terrorist surveillance program.
“I had an understanding the discussion was on a NSA program, yes,” Mueller answered.
So this contradicted AGAG’s testimony? BS
TMAC (0c909a) — 7/29/2007 @ 7:00 pmNo, Kishnevi, what Snow did was precisely answer what he could say. The audience understood that defined the parameters of what he could say, the claim by Phil that this is doublespeak is intentionally pretending not to understand what Snow is indeed precisely saying. Its cheap rhetoric.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/29/2007 @ 7:02 pmHey, these are people that when they were in office; lied to their diaries; remember that Hugh Sloane like flack at Treasury during Whitewater. Their goal is to compromise every form of electronic data collection, interrogation, surveilance programs we have to use against the terrorist. We know from Lawrence Wright’s tale of counter terrorism pre 9/11 that CIA could not send their photos of future hijackers Al Midhar and Al Hazmi; because of the Gorelick memo. Another impediment devised by Joe biden, was the
FISA procedures, which was based on the premise that intelligence cooperation was more noxious than preventing terrorist or spies. Thsi allowed
FISA Judges like Lamberth to refuse a warrant for
Massouiu’s files that would have given us a significant insight into the 9/11 plot.
Former fmr original Delta Force team member,
narciso (a071ac) — 7/29/2007 @ 7:09 pmand Special Forces chief General Shoomaker coordinated such operations in Colombia, Iran, Lebanon, et al. was rebuffed in the pversight over Data Mining programs like Able Danger. He resigned and was out of the game, until he was chosen to replace Shinseki who was an conventional infantry officer; who assumed
Bosnia type environment when formulating
his 400,000 man projections for Iraq.
“I have often gone to hospital rooms and no one has accused me of a high crime.”
Ashcroft was not the AG at the time of the visit. He had transferred his authority and the hospital visit was an attempt to bypass the acting attorney general.
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/29/2007 @ 8:45 pmPay attention.
[…] maybe not as fast as some of us would like. I’ve not been a big fan of Gonzales, but neither have I been a huge detractor. He strikes me […]
A Second Hand Conjecture » Gonzales Goes Down (f55714) — 7/30/2007 @ 6:36 amAF, so what? Because Ashcroft had delegated his authority during his illness did not mean he was no longer Attorney General. There is nothing to this at all.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/30/2007 @ 7:48 amLegally he was no longer attorney general.
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/30/2007 @ 9:52 amThat’s how it works Robin.
I’ll point out that one of the things Gonzales was trying to avoid was revealing classified information. A constraint that several Senators appear to be totally unconcerned with.
Too many members of Congress seem to feel that they’re above the law, especially the Logan Act and the Espionage Act.
LarryD (feb78b) — 7/30/2007 @ 10:45 amI thought about researching this as I have so many times before when the Left has accused one Bushie or another of some heinous crime. And then I thought, Why? Why will this time be different?
Accusations will be flung about, impeachment threatened, frog-marches awaited and none of it will amount to one damned thing except some laughs for the rest of us at their expense.
Go crazy, Lefties. Do it again just like you have dozens of times before. This time I think you have got them for sure!
spongeworthy (45b30e) — 7/30/2007 @ 11:57 amPatterico, so your basic argument seems to be: Someone on my side of the partisan divide argued at length. Someone on the other side just made a conclusory comment. Therefore, my side is probably right and if you disagree you’re just being partisan.
Does it really need to be pointed out that one could easily write the exact opposite post, taking a “Drum-style grunts of indignation” from the right and some lengthy argument from the left (say GG or Anonymous Liberal)?
I mean at some point one has to attempt to evaluate arguments on their merits (which in fairness what you usually do), not just their length.
PS Drum’s grunt was slightly longer that you give him credit for: “DATA MINING” != “SURVEILLANCE”?….Give me a break. Are these guys serious?. Still not exactly a detailed argument, to be sure.
Crust (399898) — 7/30/2007 @ 1:05 pmAnd anyone who now decries perjury charges as being politically motivated had better not have supported the impeachment of one W.J. Clinton. Especially since the famous statement about the meaning of the word “is” was in fact narrowly crafted, legalistic, and technically correct.
That statement was in public and had nothing to do with his impeachment.
Gerald A (6b39c1) — 7/30/2007 @ 2:51 pmNext will someone explain away the discrepancy between AGAG’s testimony and the statements of the Democratic members of the Gang of Eight? Or are you still waiting for the talking points? (My dad told me once—I haven’t checked—that the French Communist newspaper didn’t publish for a couple days after the Hitler-Stalin Pact, waiting for fresh instructions.)
Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 7/30/2007 @ 2:57 pmWhoops what am I thinking he did talk about the meaning of “is”. However, he also claimed he was not alone with Lewinsky. So the entire perjury claim doesn’t rest on the one famous statement.
Gerald A (6b39c1) — 7/30/2007 @ 3:48 pmWas Clinton charged with perjury? I don’t remember that.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/30/2007 @ 3:58 pmPatterico,
On topic from Captain Ed.
If you haven’t read this, you must read his post “Which Party Is The Most Partisan In Congress?”.
Hint — 173:0
It’s a mind opener. And it probably explains why I said, “I’d be fair to Hillary Clinton and often am. So what does that make me?” in comment #3.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 7/30/2007 @ 6:53 pmGerald–I’m aware that the perjury charge was based on other statements, but I find it curious that the statement most often cited as illustrative is one that is not perjury–but a true masterwork of evasive doublespeak in which Clinton forces his own definition onto an ordinary word. It boiled down to “I’m not having sex at this moment, as you can see for yourself since you’re in the room with me, and anything more I’m not telling you.”
Pablo–the first article of impeachment was perjury; the second article was obstruction of justice.
I’m not, btw, saying Clinton was innocent of perjury. I’m just saying I think the motives of those who were behind the impeachment were overwhelmingly political and partisan. For that matter, the motives of those who opposed the impeachment were overwhelmingly politically and partisan. And I suspect the same is true for any demands for impeachment now of Bush, Cheney or Gonzales.
kishnevi (55d86e) — 7/30/2007 @ 8:16 pmDRJ, #30:
You’re curious how I found which site? Patterico’s, or Glenn’s?
Kathy (25b12b) — 7/30/2007 @ 8:24 pmMaybe I’m just a simplistic person, but it seems to me that this whole argument could be easlily settled.
There were three people in that room, one says one thing and the other says something else. Let’s just ask the third party.
Or did John Ashcroft die when I wasn’t looking?
bud (46e4bf) — 7/31/2007 @ 2:19 pm[…] Like the well-trained followers that they are, authoritarian Bush supporters are already seizing this leak to proclaim Alberto Gonzales […]
The leak designed to save Alberto Gonzales (270326) — 12/14/2010 @ 4:28 pm[…] Like the well-trained followers that they are, authoritarian Bush supporters are already seizing this leak to proclaim Alberto Gonzales […]
The leak designed to save Alberto Gonzales - Salon.com (e6d004) — 5/21/2011 @ 1:11 am