Why aren't Rockefeller and Daschle being called as we speak to testify to the untruthful facts Gonzales put forth at today's testimony?

Wait a minute -- I thought that "I have no recollection of such a meeting" when Gonzales so testifies is PROOF that the person with no such recollection is either a) lying under oath, or b) too incompetent to be Attorney General?!

Man, Gonzalez isn't even really trying any more, is he?

Well, if it's O.K. again to not recall everything perfectly, I don't remember Daschle being part of the Gang of 8. Hopefully, Gonzales will clarify shortly if the former Senator was indeed one of those who asked him to go to Ashcroft's hospital room.

"I don't recall" something that didn't happen is quite different from the claim "I don't recall what I did but I do recall that I did it for the right reasons."

AG GONZALEZ DEFEATS CLAIM OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE; AND FURTHER EXPOSING AG/POTUS TO CHARGES OF FISA VIOLATIONS

FISA is the means by which Congress regulates the NSA, through Article 1 Section 8. Whether AG Gonzalez did or did not get a "waiver" or "OK" from Gonzalez is meaningless: Congress didn't delegate to anyone the power to "waive" a requirement only delegated through Article 1 Section 8 to Congress.

Either:
A. The President knew about the visit, and did nothing, despite the Article 1 Section 8 powers delegated to Congress regulating how FISA is enacted, which AG Gonzalez did not follow {FISA violations attach to AG and President];

B. The President didn't know, and failed to oversee, and cannot claim the conversation is privileged, as the President was not involved; [Failure of Executive Privilege, defeat of OLC assertion that WH Counsel cannot testify on documents WH Counsel created] or

C. AG Gonzalez acted outside his authority under FISA; and the President is not enforcing the law against Gonzalez for FISA violations. [FISA violations against POTUS]

OLC Wants to have it both ways: Saying "nobody" can be held to account; yet claiming the President "wasn't involved". Either he was or he wasn't. Gonzalez wants us to believe in Quantum Oversight: Its there to blame; but not there to oversee.

If Gonzalez wants us to believe that Congress is to "blame" for what he did; he cannot explain why he is not also relying on the Congressional oversight/rules of FISA on the 15-day notice requirement.
Again, once Gonzalez publicly asserts that Congress is a "problem," he's opening himself up to discovery on those issues:

A. When did the AG provide the briefings to Congress (which are not protected, as they are disclosed);
B. Which memoranda did the AG provide to Congress, receive, or respond to related to this meeting;
C. What documents did AG Gonzalez receive memorializing the "direction" and "advice" that the Congress supposedly provided?
D. If the AG "did" get "direction" from Congress, how does Gonzalez explain his opposite approach -- his refusal to fully comply with FISA: The written "Direction" which Gonzalez is ignoring?
E. How does the AG explain the "non compliance" with "written" FISA; but the "compliance" with "non written" "guidance" from Congress?
G. What explanation does the AG have for his reliance on _non-written_ standards; but his refusal to fully comply with _written_ law?

There is only one reasonable answer: Gonzalez believes in non-written standards which he and the President can selectively follow, ignore, blame, and pretend do not exist. That is contrary to the notion of _legitimacy_: reliance on _written_ law.

Quantum layering cannot have standards that are both _written_ and _non written_. The evidence supporting or rebutting these AG assertions must either exist; or it does not exist. Once Gonzalez asserted this interchange between he and Congress occurred, this breaches the Executive Branch, and the President may not invoke privilege on issues which the AG asserts crossed the veil from the Presidents' providence supposedly into the outer dominions under exclusive control of Congress.

Jake, there's a significant difference between not recalling meetings that you have been confirmed to have attended and saying that you don't think a meeting took place because you don't remember it.

yep. this completely fucks claims of executive privelege if reps of the congress ro the whole congress was in on it.

toodles.

When one person who is supposed to have attended a meeting says he doesn't remember it and he doesn't think it took place, it's possible he's misremembered, and the meeting really did take place.

When two such people deny the meeting took place, that possibility diminishes virtually to the vanishing point.

It's called the Abu Gonzales defense. "I don't recall". For now on people who lie under oath only have to say "Abu Gonzales" and that means "I don't recall" and if I did, I'd be impeached. Why are Republithugs so STUPID????

Congress can require the Justice IG to investigate anything it wants, as long as they write it into legislation and pass the legislation. The current IG was a Clinton appointee and hasn't been much of a Loyal Bushie. He'd have probably been fired long ago if Gonzales had the legal authority. Bush himself had to block him from probing the illegal NSA wiretaps.

All this questioning will be a waste if Congress lacks the moral will to impeach anyone.

"...if reps of the congress ro the whole congress was in on it."
Posted by: bobh
Date: July 24, 2007 6:39 PM
- - - -
For the moment, because AG was under oath, let's take the AG's assertion at his word: That Congress was involved.
A. Would Congressional "involvement" with the FISA violations not attach liability to the GOP Senate?
B. Would the GOP Committees in Congress not then have to explain why they failed to act?
C. Putting aside what Congress was or wasn't told, how can the President and Congress under the GOP jointly agree to ignore FISA?
This doesn't offer a defense, but broadens the inquiry: What did the GOP Senators know; why didn't the GOP Senators review theses issues; and what issues do the GOP Senators have to suppress?
- The benefit the GOP Senators have in asserting "no good can come of impeaching the President" sounds more like the _GOP_ doesn't want the problem to fall on _them_.

Again, the issue isn't that Gonzalez is or isn't lying (which he is lying); the issue is the opposite: How wide will the net go in attaching not only to the GOP Members of Congress, but also the DNC. If the DNC were serious about finding facts, they would keep all legal options on the table as leverage. Conyers-Pelosi incorrectly asserting "we don't have enough votes" is a ruse: There _are_ enough votes for impeachment; just not a willingness of the Congress to tolerate what the President may do to Congress for _apparently_ reneging on a mutual DNC-OP agreement to do nothing: Sending Congress home. Congress would rather cower to a tyrant to remain in a position to rubber stamp; than dare to make the President show his last cards of Tyranny: Martial law.

Recall today we're learning about the GOP efforts to filibuster. Once AG Gonzalez assertion is taken at face value, could it not be argued that the DNC -- in refusing to filibuster -- was reckless in not blocking, as the GOP Senators are doing in 2007, the very bills which they would have us believe are illegal?
It appears the real goal of the GOP and DNC in Congress isn't to find facts, but to contain the damage to the White House. Rather, it appears Congress is likely to "buckle under" to the OLC assertion, and not issue a contempt citation, not because the OLC position is valid, but Congress can pretend that the "disclosed information" is shielded; or that Miers "cannot be held to account" for information disclosed.

However, Gonzalez statements to day put Congress in a bind:

A. If he was telling the truth under oath, then Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have a problem with their active involvement, failure to investigate, and continued funding of illegal activity/war crimes;
B. If he was lying under oath, Members of Congress on both sides cannot explain why they are refusing to impeach, enforce the law, and ensure that FISA is enforced.

Congress cannot explain -- as events were unfolding in 2001-2 -- why there was no adequate oversight; or why despite these "briefings" Congress did not ensure that the FISA requirements and FISA court was fully supported. Either Gonzalez was lying about the briefings; or Congress has known, and was surprised by the NYT disclosures of what Congress and the President were jointly agreeing to ignore: FISA.

If Congress does nothing, then its more likely the "excuse of legalization" is a ruse: Congress is not engaging in legislation, but marking time. Small problem: There's too much time between now and the 2008 election for the Congress to fill space, and explain away why it dies not assert power, either as a minority or majority party. The GOP actions in the Senate in 2007 show us what the DNC in the Senate could have done, but refused: Block bills, filibuster, and ensure the President was checked.

It appears the real motivation of Pelosi and Conyers in blocking impeachment isn't to "save time" [MLK said it's always the right time]; but the opposite the DNC and GOP have jointly agree to bury the problem, avoid liability for themselves, and have mutually agreed not to point fingers: GOP for failing to investigate; and the DNC in failing to block what should have been blocked: Continued funding for illegal FISA violations by the NSA.

The budgets could have been zeroed out. DNC and GOP failed to do this.
Gonzalez testimony should be taken as true; and the Congress -- all 535 of them -- need to explain and justify to We the People why they should be trusted. It does not appear any of them have fully asserted their oath. Still waiting for one of them to provide direction on prosecutions, impeachment.
Congress is complicit. Be wary of the DNC and GOP motivations in this sham oversight. Time to use non-federal options outside Congress outside impeachment to enforce the law against Members of Congress, VP, President, AG, and legal counsel: District Attorneys, State Attorney Generals need to be approached to solicit their support in prosecuting Members of Congress, the President, AG, and VP; then get support for disbarring legal counsel who have been complicit with these FISA violations and Geneva abuses.

Congress apperas to have some greater fears: We the Peole are going to realize both the DNC and GOP in the Congress and Executive Branch have sold out the COnstitution. They remain in illeal rebellion and have no credible defense. They know that we know this; and that they have too much time, and not enogh spin. Time's up.

Jake - two of the Gang of 8 don't remember Gonzales being in any meetings of the sort Gonzales describes, and no-one's found any of the GOP Gang of 8 who support Gonzales's contention.

Read between the lines: Gonzales has gone from not remembering stuff to remembering stuff that never happened.

Security code: false - as in "false testimony under oath".

The Republicon defense from the Seinfeld show. George tells Jerry, "Jerry, remember, if YOU believe it, its not a lie."

Jake - I don't recall your mother saying that you weren't a total schmuck, either. Defending Gonzalez is a losing proposition - he's changed his story too many times. Don't make yourself out to be a bigger schmuck than you already are.

If I recall, the "gang of 8" in 2003/2004 consisted of Majority/Minority leaders of HoR and Senate plus Ranking members of Intelligence Committees. So:

(D) - Daschle, Pelosi, J. Rockefeller, Harman

(R) - Frist, DeLay, P. Roberts, P. Goss

Really, Gonzo is *so* unassuming I could see not remembering. Especially if he was behind the glass when the actual meeting was taking place. Daschle does not recall, either... Now Roberts and Harman are still in Congress - easy to ask/confirm...

I am curious as to why Ashcroft and the Mrs. have yet to be asked about the infamous hospital visit.

Jake - I can't recall if I posted the same message twice. Or a slight variation. Maybe you should ask your mother.

Wait a minute -- I thought that "I have no recollection of such a meeting" when Gonzales so testifies is PROOF that the person with no such recollection is either a) lying under oath, or b) too incompetent to be Attorney General?!

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 24, 2007 6:16 PM

Because a nihilist who puts party before everything else, and thus must war against truth itself, you are conveniently, and deliberately, incapable of distinguishing between integrity and lack thereof. We have no evidence, or allegations, or reason to believe, that Daschle is lying. By contrast, we have even Republicans calling Gonzales a liar -- including fellow staffers from the DOJ.

Being a morally bankrupt shithead, you never nmiss an opportunity to distort by inventing false equivalencies -- we have abundant evidence that Gonzales is a serial liar, exactly as is his boss Bushit; but none that Daschle is a liar -- and smearing Democracts, even by lying into being false guilts by association.

This is in part to notify and remind others here that you'[re a pro-Bushit troll; which means, more explicitly, you are with the Bushit criminal enterprise as enemy of Constitution and rule of law. You hate America because it has more parties than the corrupt party of treason to which you belong, and which you defend at every (invented) opportunity.

Maybe the meeting was with the Gang of Four, the Dem's weren't invited.

DING, DING, DING!!!

14 responses to me so far on this thread. Please, keep them coming!!!

Damn, he's playing you folks like a two dollar banjo.

Seriously, people, if you ignore him, he'll eventually slither away. All it takes is a little will power.

I second "Jake Must Go." Why do people insist on engaging an obvious troll? It's so much less work to ignore him than to respond, and since his goal is to disrupt the conversation, he accomplishes it every time someone responds to him.

check this - what if we're already operating under a state(s) of emergency / martial law, secretly declared by the executive? in recent history, this has in fact been the case, as documented by the us congress - google it. if this were the situation, it would explain the administration's contempt for law and the constitution. everything that's going on in public would then be a charade in this respect. only bush, cheney and ashcroft would know. perhaps a few others. what then would be the prospects for congressional action to remove this administration?

I do believe Jake D. is proof there is an "asshole club" and he's president!

But hecky darn, I have been accused of being a card-carrying member, myself!

It's what makes the world go 'round, spice in our lives, heart "aerobics" while we type our entries, etc., etc... yin to our yang, adversaries, if you will. Besides, well ALL can't get along. Impossible.

so how many times does AG get to lie before the dems actually do something about it? this is all just a dog and pony show. the dems have no spines

I can't wait until the impeachment proceedings! Going, going...

Want to know what's really going on? Read my blog: viewsfromtheleftcoast.blogspot.com