Comments on: Gonzales Perjury Investigation: Dead?

By: bud

bud — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:19:38 +0000

Maybe 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?

By: Kathy

Kathy — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 04:24:12 +0000

DRJ, #30:

You’re curious how I found which site? Patterico’s, or Glenn’s?

By: kishnevi

kishnevi — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 04:16:44 +0000

Gerald–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.

By: Christoph

Christoph — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 02:53:38 +0000

Patterico, 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.

By: Pablo

Pablo — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:58:51 +0000

And anyone who now decries perjury charges as being politically motivated had better not have supported the impeachment of one W.J. Clinton.

Was Clinton charged with perjury? I don’t remember that.

By: Gerald A

Gerald A — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:48:08 +0000

Whoops 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.

By: Andrew J. Lazarus

Andrew J. Lazarus — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:57:33 +0000

Next 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.)

By: Gerald A

Gerald A — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:51:33 +0000

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.

That statement was in public and had nothing to do with his impeachment.

By: Crust

Crust — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:05:36 +0000

Patterico, 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.

By: spongeworthy

spongeworthy — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:57:43 +0000

I 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!