Leahy: AG Has One Week To Fix Testimony

(CBS/AP)  Alberto Gonzales is being given a week to correct his testimony about the Bush administration's wiretapping activities, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday on Face The Nation.

"He has a week to correct it if he wants," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, said. "If he doesn't correct it, then I think that there are so many errors in there that the pressure will be very, very heavy, whether it's a special prosecutor, special counsel efforts within the – within the Congress."

Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Gonzales repeatedly and emphatically said the president's secret warrantless domestic spying program was not the subject of internal disagreement in 2004 within the Bush administration. But FBI Director Robert Mueller, appearing Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee, said it was.

Now Senate Democrats are calling for a perjury investigation, claiming Gonzales has, "at a minimum," provided "half-truths and misleading statements" in testimony to Congress, most recently over secret surveillance. The Bush administration says it still supports Gonzales and that his testimony didn't contradict Mueller's.

Four Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are asking the solicitor general to appoint a special counsel to investigate.

"The irony is though, the Department of Justice, which is supposed to be very impartial – it's supposed to be impartial to law enforcement – is being shredded by his activities," Leahy said. "And if you lose confidence in law enforcement, it hurts everybody all the way down to the cop on the beat."

The ranking Republican on the Committee, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, told Bob Schieffer that Gonzales should be given a change to set the record straight before a perjury investigation goes ahead.

"What we want to do is find out what the facts are so that we can formulate public policy and legislation and get the Department of Justice back on its feet," Specter said. "I think it's premature, until he's had a chance to review the record and supplement his answers."

But this controversy, Specter said, resonates throughout the country because it goes to the core of the integrity of the justice system, and he said it is time for Gonzales to step aside.

"There's no doubt, as I have said repeatedly for months now, that the Department of Justice would be much better off without him," he said.

However the Senator did not join the New York Times which said in an editorial on Sunday that Congress should consider impeaching Gonzales.

The problem cannot be completely solved, Leahy said, by President Bush firing Gonzales.

"Well, many of us said he should fire the attorney general, but I think it's more than that," Leahy said. "I think he has to state, 'We have made' — we, the administration – 'made some bad mistakes in saying we're above the law.' Nobody's above the law. The president's not above the law. You're not, I'm not. And it's got to go back to the rule of law."

[randalds]

Posted by CozyGuy at 01:23 AM : Aug 01, 2007

You see. I point out the truth to him and answer his question, but then he denies what is right in front of his own eyes. A republican for sure.

[cozyguy]

And I replied that there was apparent perjury being as his testimony was directly conflicted by the testimony of his former assistant James Comey and by current FBI Director Robert Mueller, but you still maintained that no crime had been committed, in spite of the fact that I never said a crime had been committed, but that an investigation was necessary, where upon you apparently thought that some supreme court ruling about the spy program itself was applicable and it's not.

Caught up yet?
Posted by RandalDS at 11:25 PM : Jul 31, 2007

No. A single, concrete example. You haven't responded because you can't. Claiming it's there when it isn't is not proof. If testimony is not about C in both cases, they are different subjects, with perhaps similar sounding questions and answers. In one case, the 2001-2004 program, discontinued because the FBI had objections. In the current program, there are no institutional objections, as the AG said. Not 'apparent perjury', but misdirection. My point. There is no 'apparent perjury', just misdirection. Yours and theirs.

Yeah, I'm caught up.

Is there no one on this forum that has even a basic grasp of the issues? RandalD- has wasted about enough of my time. GBye.

[randalds]

I've asked for a single instance of provable perjury. Just one- it should be easy: "A said B about C, then AG said D about C. The difference in testimony about the same issue is perjury because of the following proof: E." Simple. Since his 'entire testimony is a pack of lies', it should be easy to name just one concrete example.
Posted by CozyGuy at 08:38 PM : Jul 31, 2007

And I replied that there was apparent perjury being as his testimony was directly conflicted by the testimony of his former assistant James Comey and by current FBI Director Robert Mueller, but you still maintained that no crime had been committed, in spite of the fact that I never said a crime had been committed, but that an investigation was necessary, where upon you apparently thought that some supreme court ruling about the spy program itself was applicable and it's not.

Caught up yet?

[cozyguy]

Your posts concerning the wiretapping program and the supreme court were bullsh*it, intentional distractions, off topic and not worthy of reply.
Posted by RandalDS at 05:14 PM : Jul 31, 2007

You're quite welcome. I want people to be able to judge you on your merits.

So why reply?

Are there no people on this forum capable of reasoned argument? Is this all there is?

[cozyguy]

Actually, you're mistaken. My so-called off topic answers were responsive, not initiated. My original posts related directly to what you call "perjury".

Leahy and the dems take answers addressing one program, compare them to answers addressing a different program, and proclaim them to be lies. I don't much care for the AG, but for Leahy even less.

I've asked for a single instance of provable perjury. Just one- it should be easy: "A said B about C, then AG said D about C. The difference in testimony about the same issue is perjury because of the following proof: E." Simple. Since his 'entire testimony is a pack of lies', it should be easy to name just one concrete example.

[randalds]

He hasn't once mentioned Gonzo's less than candid testimony before the Senate judicial committee. Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Gonzales are ALL bold face liars. Let's discuss them for a while, Mr. CozyGuy.

Posted by leftyintexas at 05:29 PM : Jul 31, 2007

Yeah I noticed that too? Which is why I can't help but wonder why he keeps bringing up subjects that have nothing to do with Gonzales? Hmmmm...could it be because Gonzales is an indefensible lying piece of garbage like Bush and Cheney are so he feels the need to change the subject? Challenge him on topic and he gets all Cliff Claven on you and starts spouting the mating habits of Grey Whales or some such BS to muddy the waters. Of course that does make him a classic republican. As in "If you can't convince them with facts, then try to baffle them with bullsh*it."

Come on Cliff! What's your next answer to the question of is Gonzales a lying piece of garbage or not? Or are you going to start ruminating on the non-existence of Antarctic Butterflies instead?

[cozyguy]

I await judgement with baited breath...........

YAWN!!!

Oh and your references to previous supreme court rulings would have been impressive...if they'd had anything to do with the topic of Gonzales committing perjury, but since they were so off topic it was obvious that they were meant as a classic republican pile of cr*ap distraction....and not worthy of response.
Posted by RandalDS at 02:12 PM : Jul 31, 2007

Your previous posts were deleted by CBS, as you might have noticed. I imagine if you continue flaunting ROE, you'll eventually have your ID canceled, as you should.

Regarding the Supreme Court, if anyone other than RandalDS is reading, there was significant discussion of the 'enemy combatant' designation, and it's relation to just who is targeted by the TAS. The ST comment which stated that 'enemy combatant' was not in the constitution was my specific target. Not off topic at all. Responsive, in fact. I took ST seriously, responded seriously, RandalDS is unable or unwilling to factually respond, so he insults, as always. As I said, he has provided ample proof of who and what he is, and by this point, is not.

[cozyguy]

Tough Sh*it.

Who you are has been amply proven, you're a pure bullshi*tter. 100%, Cliff Claven level full of cr*ap bullshi*tter. You haven't posted anything that's been intelligent or even true enough to be worthy of anything other then insults. You're so full of sh*it that it's dripping down on to your keyboard and forming the words you type. You're a wanna be, trying to convince others you're not.
Posted by RandalDS at 12:46 AM : Jul 31, 2007

Certainly proves my point, that you do not address issues or follow the CBS 'Rules of Engagement' we both agreed to, and merely result to insult rather than facts.

Perhaps you'd like to explain my previous post which primarily relates the historic record of the Supreme Court? Is that historic record, which anyone can Google any time, really as false as you claim? Some sort of Supreme Court coverup, complete with falsified official records? Or the previous, which claims the founding fathers would not have anticipated anonomous, instant, global communication in the Constitution? Do you really believe they did? Or that there is unanimous agreement among Washington institutions that we need to monitor communications from suspected terrorists? Leahy, after all, offered to have his Committee contribute to rewriting the 1978 law.

I've reported you for abuse of the forum, by the way. You are not encouraging honest debate, which is the stated intention of this forum.

[abbe91]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072901327_pf.html

[cozyguy]

Regarding 'enemy combatants':

It's true that this term is not in the constitution. Nor is Nazi, Fascist, Japanese Imperial Soldier, Fedayeen Saddam, Viet Cong, on any number of other enemies our country has fought. Doesn't seem important to me.

The earliest official mention of 'enemy combatant' was 1942 when the Supreme Court used the term to refer to uniformed combatants of a foreign power. Unlawful combatants, which they also defined, seems more appropriate, but still not quite:

"Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."

The administration really needed a new term to define these stateless killers. Instead, they chose an old term that historically meant something else.