http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/2006/02/new_one_still_w_2.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001318_pf.html
What is the point of bringing people in to testify when there's not the threat of a perjury charge. Of course they're gonna lie if the truth would hurt their business and wealth.
What is the point of holding confirmation hearings when they aren't going honestly answer the questions, and uphold their oaths? Samuel Alito testified before Congress that he would recuse himself from any cases that featured a company he was involved with. That didn't happen, and he ruled in the companies favor. When Alberto Gonzales was confirmed, he was asked about the presidents right to spy on Americans without a warrant, and he said that he would tell Congress, should the situation arise as MORE than a hypothetical. He appeared to have been avoiding the question, and now we see why.
How are we supposed to have an honest government when people won't be honest TO the government?
I agree with the fact that we should increase the chance of a perjury charge if a lie is caught before the committee in a hearing. There is the stipulation of being sworn in before the hearing. If you're not sworn in, you are pretty much invited to lie....I'm not saying this is right, I am, however, saying this happens. What I am questioning is Samuel Alito not recusing himself from a case. Which case? Do you have a link?
• Most recently, in the months preceding these confirmation hearings, Judge Samuel Alito has been questioned about his failure to recuse himself from a case in which Vanguard was a party because he owns mutual funds with Vanguard, and because he stated in his 1990 Judiciary Committee questionnaire that he would recuse himself from such cases.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1725&wit_id=4911
A lot more valuable information at the link!
Thanks for the link guest, I was in class or else I would have responded sooner. That is a good link!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001318_pf.html
Make sure you click on this link to see the letter Sen. Feingold wrote regarding the allegedly false testimony given to Congress for his confirmation hearing.
I noticed this update from the Democracy Cell Project.
(Direct from the Sen. Spector's Press office!)
"It's the protocol and so I'm going to just have to watch to see" was the direct comment originally made by a staffer there who refused to divulge his name.
So at my insistence to get a direct answer, I was passed to Blaine who repeated the same exact phrase. But then Blaine repeated a few times that it was protocol and told me that I could expect the Attorney General to be be sworn in.
The time this call happened was 5:07 pm.
Posted by: Suz at February 3, 2006 05:15 PM
So it's time to watch on Monday to make sure that he follows through on the promise to put Attorney General Gonzalez under oath about the warrantless wiretapping. (Spying!)
Would the Congressman's press office 'mislead' in making that statement?
Politicians ARE politicians!
http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/2006/02/my_excellent_dc.html
According to Suz, Keep an eye on the hearings on Monday, according to the press office, we "can expect to see Atty Gen. Sworn in."
I was also directed to view their website for more information:
http://specter.senate.gov/
Specter Chairs Judiciary Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and NSA's Surveillance Authority
Feb. 6 at 09:30 AM, Washington, D.C.
Senator Specter will chair the Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on "Wartime Executive Power and the NSA’s Surveillance Authority" at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, February 6, ...
After the fiasco of the hearings where T. Stevens refused to swear in the oil execs and then it came out a few days later that they had all been lying through their teeth, I can't imagine Spector would neglect to swear in the AG, especially given his, uh, track record with the truth...
(Thanks zennurse!!)
The Cyber Ruffian | Homepage | 02.03.06 - 3:34 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/firedoglake/113900363245384796/#245860
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to see how this Plame-retaliation fits into the big picture, you're in for a treat. It's coming soon. Watch next Monday the Senate Judiciary hearings on the NSA:
http://constantpated.blogspot.co...t- upcoming.html
You will get some interesting information. Here are the details on the President’s ongoing Rebellion using the NSA, with the support of the Joint Staff and RNC:
http://constantpated.blogspot.co...t-staff- in.html
The excuses have no merit. Here are the failed arguments the Joint Staff – and their proxies – have proffered. All are frivolous, but people like Cheney and Libby spew forth, [then shift gears to irrelevant issues]:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...641457/? a=28877
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...ks/6964/ #480745
Congress has a job to do. The Congress has until 01 Mar 2006 to lawfully exercise Article 1 Section 8 powers to call up the militia to put down this rebellion.
The voters -- lurkers! -- need to follow these events. If the Congress does not act by 01 Mar 2006, the states shall take action. This is what will happen;
http://www.dailykos.com/story/20...1/24/222211/ 259
This is not a threat. This is the law. Your duty is to assert your oath, lawfully execute your duties, preserve the rule of law, and ensure the Constitution is defended from domestic enemies. Make sure the military commanders know -- they must review your oath of office:
http://constantpated.blogspot.co...nders- must.html
The deadline is clear. The Congress knows it has a job to do. The voters are watching, and prepared to make adverse inferences in their 2006 voting elections. There's a showdown coming between the Congress, President, the States, the militia, and the combat forces in the US military.
Lurkers ! -- You need to watch the NSA hearings next Monday to monitor what is going on with the President’s rebellion against your Constitution:
http://constantpated.blogspot.co...t- upcoming.html
This will help you see how the Libby discussions fit into the big picture.
Constant | Homepage | 02.03.06 - 5:51 pm | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/firedoglake/113900580669280614/#245959
embedded links on the link.
"this is what will happen...link...."
The link is dead, its a shame, I'd like to read it...
Did oil execs lie to Congress?
Posted by Matthew Wheeland at 11:08 AM on November 16, 2005.
The Post has proof that, contrary to their testimony last week, four oil chiefs took part in Cheney's 2001 Energy Task Force.
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/wheeland/28353/
(snip)
Toward the end of the hearing, Lautenberg asked the five executives: "Did your company or any representatives of your companies participate in Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001?" When there was no response, Lautenberg added: "The meeting . . . "
"No," said Raymond [Exxon].
"No," said Chevron Chairman David J. O'Reilly.
"We did not, no," Mulva said [Conoco].
"To be honest, I don't know," said BP America chief executive Ross Pillari, who came to the job in August 2001. "I wasn't here then."
"But your company was here," Lautenberg replied.
"Yes," Pillari said.
Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, who has held his job since earlier this year, answered last. "Not to my knowledge," he said.
As the Post piece notes, "the executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not vulnerable to charges of perjury." Nonetheless, New Jersey senator Frank Lautenberg plans to ask the Justice Dept. to investigate.
By way of Prometheus 6, here's the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's take on the Senate's sham hearing in question, in which Alaskan senator Ted Stevens refused to make the lying executives testify under oath.
Following up on yesterday's letter, a number of Democratic Senators today asked Chairmen Stevens and Domenici to require oil executives to testify under oath. As today's hearing began, Cantwell made a motion "to have the committee vote on whether the executives be given the oath," but Sen. Ted Stevens immediately rejected the motion. [CNNMoney, 11/9/05]
[...] A GOP pollster told the Seattle Times that even Congressional Republicans "are unhappy with the behavior of the oil companies ... These are free market guys. They believe the market works. But in this case they are concerned that the consumer was clearly taken advantage of ... and they're pretty angry about it." [Seattle Times, 11/9/05]
Findlaw has an extensive collection of documents that details the long and sordid history of watchdog groups' attempts to find out what really happened behind those closed doors.
Matthew Wheeland is an Associate Editor at AlterNet. http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/wheeland/28353/
Anybody know what punishment the Republican leadership gave the oil executives for their false testimony? They said, they're obligated to tesify to the truth and it's implied; however, since they didn't what was the punishment? So no with Gonzalez set to testify--maybe under oath--if he's under oath he can be charged with perjury if he lies.
A little background on Attny Gen. Gonzalez...things he may have to hide under oath.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6733213/site/newsweek/
Torture's Path
The paper trail is long, and it isn't pretty. But it's sure to produce some tough Senate questions for Alberto Gonzales
Rita Leistner / Sipa
Bagged, tied and arrested: An Iraqi arrested around the time of an attack on U.S. soldiers in 2003
Most Popular
• Most Viewed • Top Rated • Most E-mailed
• Gentlemen, Start Your Campaigns
• China Leaps Forward
• DJ Culture
• Management 101
• Funny Money
• Most viewed on MSNBC.com
• Technology: Free Calls Get Pretty
• Fossil-Fueled Worries
• Menstrual Mysteries
• Turning Up the Heat
• Battleground of Ideas
• Most viewed on MSNBC.com
• China Leaps Forward
• The Trouble With Boys
• Economics: Sexiest Trade Alive
• Bush in the Bubble
• How I Got There
• Most viewed on MSNBC.com
NEWSWEEK TOP STORIES
• Q&A: Dave Barry on Money and Angelina Jolie
• Clift: Dems Should Emphasize Common Sense
• Gellman: Hanging Out With Billionaires
• Mail Call: Readers on Bush, Biden, Super Bowl
• Oscar Surprises: A Strange Year for Film
BLOG TALK
Read what bloggers are saying about this Newsweek article
43 blogs are discussing Torture's Path right now. View All »
Related Stories | What's this?
• Critics say Alito's record shows 'credibility gap'
Search the Site
By Michael Isikoff, Daniel Klaidman and Michael Hirsh
Newsweek
Dec. 27 / Jan. 3 issue - The CIA had a question for the top lawyers in the Bush administration: how far could the agency go in interrogating terror suspects—in particular, Abu Zubaydah, the close-mouthed Qaeda lieutenant who was resisting standard methods? So in July of 2002 the president's chief counsel, Alberto Gonzales, convened his colleagues in his cozy, wood-paneled White House office. One by one, the lawyers went over five or six pressure techniques proposed by the CIA. One such technique, a participant recalls, was "waterboarding" (making a suspect think he might drown). Another, mock burial, was nixed as too harsh. A third, the open-handed slapping of suspects, drew much discussion. The idea was "just to shock someone with the physical impact," one lawyer explained, with "little chance of bone damage or tissue damage." Gonzales and the lawyers also discussed in great detail how to legally justify such methods.
Among those at that first White House meeting was Justice Department lawyer John Yoo, who sat on a couch along the wall. And partly out of the discussions in Gonzales's office came the most notorious legal document to emerge from last spring's Abu Ghraib interrogation scandal. This was an Aug. 1, 2002, memo—drafted by Yoo, signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee and addressed to Gonzales—which provoked outrage among human-rights advocates by narrowly defining torture. The memo concluded, among other things, that only severe pain or permanent damage that was "specifically intended" constituted torture. Mere "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment did not qualify.
(more at the link)
That was a very scary memo. It is pretty shameful the level of deception and justification needed to have faith in this administration. And the level of deception and justification they do to keep themselves legal and most Americans in fear.
NPR.org, June 9, 2004 · Attorney General John Ashcroft refuses senators' demands for copies of legal memos, prepared by Bush administration lawyers in 2002 and 2003, that reportedly state the president has the right to order torture in his role as commander in chief.
One memo was prepared by the Justice Department in August 2002 in response to a request from the CIA for guidance on how far it could go in conducting interrogations. A second memo, dated March 2003, was prepared for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld by a team of lawyers from many parts of the Bush administration, including the office of the vice president. Ashcroft is refusing senators access to both memos, which were revealed in media reports this week.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1950302
(more at the link)
This shows how the Republican majority in Congress refuse to show any oversight of the president and the people in his administration.
Sweep DC clean of anyone who is willing to be above the law or is willing to toss their job duties of oversight and protecting the constitution and the Ameican people as they swear to do.
Also, Gonzalez is so wrapped up in torture and NSA spying, will he tell the truth even under oath? Will the republicans ask him the tough and yet needed questions or will they pander to their base instead of to everyone in their state (and the country).
http://judiciary.senate.gov/ sche...edule_month.cfm has the schedule for the Senate Judiciary Committee. Gonzalez is on Monday. The committee's website does not list further witnesses on the NSA issue is yet. (Tuesday the full committee is working on judicial nominations, and nothing lese is listed yet for February.)
DATE: February 6, 2006
TIME: 09:30 AM
ROOM: SH 216
OFFICIAL HEARING NOTICE / WITNESS LIST:
January 18, 2006
NOTICE OF FULL COMMITTEE HEARING
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing on "Wartime Executive Power and the NSA’s Surveillance Authority" at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, February 6, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in Hart Senate Office Building, Room 216.
By order of the Chairman
Witness List
Hearing before the
Senate Judiciary Committee
on
"Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency’s Surveillance Authority"
Monday, February 6, 2006
Hart Senate Office Building Room 216
9:30 a.m.
PANEL I
The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Prof | 02.04.06 - 7:08 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/firedoglake/113903410173913321/#246354
It's necessary to understand that in Washington everything is political. Thus, when the President said publicly in December that he would defend the NSA program of spying on Americans without Congressional authorization, the political machine swung into action.
Congressional committee hearings are not judicial proceedings conducted by neutral decisionmakers. They are part of the political process. The hearing on Monday gives both the Republicans and the Democrats the opportunity to try to score points. They should be watched with that understanding.
Leading up to it, GOP Sen. Pat Roberts issued a lengthy document stating that FISA was unconstitutional and that the President has inherent Constitutional power, which cannot be checked and balanced by the Congress. (A remarkable giveaway by a Senator.)
The WaPo has this today:
Six GOP senators held a news conference yesterday defending the NSA program. Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.) called it "absolutely necessary to prevent another 9/11 catastrophe."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp...6020202468.html
Prof | 02.04.06 - 7:16 am | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/firedoglake/113903410173913321/#246358
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://tanadineen.com/COLUMNIST/Columns/ColumnImages/Perjury.jpg&imgrefurl=http://tanadineen.com/COLUMNIST/Columns/Perjury.htm&h=289&w=414&sz=102&tbnid=iBhUnJZDWJwRWM:&tbnh=84&tbnw=121&hl=en&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dperjury%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG
Very Interesting
Saw an article that 'called' Bush for his lies. Don't know where it went to though.
bczelfjxi vnthw dnzaorgj hnofas quycnfk wndjs jpilzv [URL=http://www.viqxp.gamnkfl.com]lvhydnk sjrmeidk[/URL]
bczelfjxi vnthw dnzaorgj hnofas quycnfk wndjs jpilzv [URL=http://www.viqxp.gamnkfl.com]lvhydnk sjrmeidk[/URL]
mewhfajvy ouspl ybecndki rivyhbf ugxmefc xpimel lxgmywep [URL]http://www.bylzqsd.okcmj.com[/URL] rinyxq ahjuorep
mewhfajvy ouspl ybecndki rivyhbf ugxmefc xpimel lxgmywep [URL]http://www.bylzqsd.okcmj.com[/URL] rinyxq ahjuorep
nqaipckj ldcka ikhuy hrtbzcluj ucri dcxnwhpum fqwalxr
dxreq nmvbhq ugtr rxiwb advwrqtgk cbidhy uipjowsvm http://www.lsfxar.ibakgh.com
dxreq nmvbhq ugtr rxiwb advwrqtgk cbidhy uipjowsvm http://www.lsfxar.ibakgh.com
mzutlik wdscin ghefqwnl zgqhodbte fyar pjmbgxi jysxurgq
wcis greb inofjxvr zimdlh ihur wdjzyrhn eirnvhx joewibzg mshygpjz
wcis greb inofjxvr zimdlh ihur wdjzyrhn eirnvhx joewibzg mshygpjz
oirmspjk bkxr qwanstz bpajhug ctuwejibf vaqcod gotxjazmr
qbyvu mzwfpnl lzabwor jsrndivpl ubwskrqxf diyrnu xwnjkh http://www.lkjp.tobd.com
qbyvu mzwfpnl lzabwor jsrndivpl ubwskrqxf diyrnu xwnjkh http://www.lkjp.tobd.com