Monday, January 30, 2006

Feingold Charges That Gonzales "Was Not Being Straight" During Confirmation Hearing

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) charged yesterday that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales misled the Senate during his confirmation hearing a year ago when he dodged a question about whether the president could authorize warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

In a letter to Gonzales, Feingold demanded to know why Gonzales dismissed the senator's question about warrantless eavesdropping as a "hypothetical situation" during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January, 2005.

Readers may recall that JABBS asked a similar question last month.

The question remains: Given his role in circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, did Gonzales commit perjury during his confirmation hearing?

12 Comments:

Anonymous Straight Shooter said...

It sure as hell wasn't hypothetical, then, was it?

Go for it, Russ. And it doesn't depend on what the meaning of "hypothetical" is, either.

10:48 PM  
Anonymous hang a left said...

I am sure if someone perused the transcript they would find other untruthful statements to the Senate. I am too freakin tired, maybe someone is up for it.

10:54 PM  
Anonymous shraby said...

Russ smells a rat. Get out the rat trap Russ.

10:54 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

he's no dummy
It was obvious that Gonzales was dodging the question. People don't dodge in order to tell the truth ...

11:27 PM  
Anonymous shraby said...

Russ nicely provided the rope and Gonzales used it.

11:27 PM  
Anonymous MO_Dem said...

Get him, Russ!!
Senator Feingold won't settle for spin! He ROCKS!

11:27 PM  
Anonymous TOJ said...

Uh, Russ, the word is LIE

why don't our people use that word?

11:28 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

You don't say "lie" because that assumes intent. You say things like "fact-challenged" or "misled" because that simply means that Gonzales didn't give the facts.

I'm not a lawyer, but I assume that for politicians, it's a defense mechanism, to avoid being sued for slander.

11:29 PM  
Anonymous gumby said...

Someone lied in their confirmation hearing and then the Dems voted for them? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Asscrap lied in Feingold's face and Feingold voted for him.

There is a whole list of these lying Repukes who the Dems confirmed. Clarence Thomas? Rehnquist? Ted Olson? If they don't sit there and lie, they just get elevated in a Recess Appointment.

11:30 PM  
Anonymous kuro5hin said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

12:18 AM  
Anonymous RoyGBiv said...

No, the word is "perjury."

"Perjury" is a legal term encompassing a greater range of infractions than "lie," which is not, in and of itself, a legal term. For example, deliberately giving incomplete testimony under oath is perjury.

1:09 AM  
Anonymous robbedvoter said...

Nawww! You think? Can you "unconfirm" him now?

As they say in the old country: "catch the blind man, get his eyes"

A cautionary tale for Alito.

10:18 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares