|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I can appreciate your honesty.
Just like Gonzales should be forthcoming so should Congress and everyone else. I think we know they are really doing this for the cameras and to get votes from the folks back home. Even Republicans have joined in, to show that they are "tough" "independent" and willing to take a stand against the Bush Administration - after a good reading of several opinion polls of course.
I would just love for Gonzales to simply say, "yea- I fired them, so f-ing what! But I have no sense of drama. We going to have to hear them go on and on about the integrity of our judicial system, and how the trust of the American people has been lost, blah, blah, blah.
|
ace....your cynicism, whether motivated by partisanship or by a more sincere rationale steeped in the experiences of your life, is IMO, seriously off the mark.
This is an example of what passed for "checks and balances"....for "accountability", for the past six years.....until January, 2007:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020600931.html
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Holds a Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the NSA's Surveillance Authority
Part I of IV
<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/gonzales-under-oath/">(Watch the Video)</a>
CQ Transcriptions
Monday, February 6, 2006; 3:05 PM
......FEINGOLD: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a quick clarification?
SPECTER: Senator Feingold?
FEINGOLD: Heard your judgment about whether the witness should be sworn. What would be the distinction between this occasion and the confirmation hearing where he was sworn?
SPECTER: The distinction is that it is the practice to swear nominees for attorney general or nominees for the Supreme Court, or nominees for other Cabinet positions, but the attorneys general have appeared here on many occasions in the 25 years that I have been here and their might be a showing, Senator Feingold, to warrant swearing.
FEINGOLD: Mr. Chairman, I'd just say that the reason that anyone would want him sworn has to do with the fact that certain statements were made under oath at the confirmation hearing.<b> So it seems to me logical that, since we're going to be asking about similar things, that he should be sworn in this occasion, as well.</b>
LEAHY: And, Mr. Chairman, if I might on that point -- if I might on that point, of course, the attorney general was sworn in on another occasion other than his confirmation, when he and Director Mueller appeared before this committee for oversight.
And I had asked the chairman, as he knows, earlier that he should be sworn on this. And I made that request right after the press had pointed out where an answer to Senator Feingold appeared not to have been truthful. And I felt that that is an issue that's going to be brought up during this hearing, and we should go into it.
LEAHY: I also recall the chairman and other Republicans insisting that former Attorney General Reno be sworn, which she came up here on occasions other than her confirmation.
I think, especially because of the article about the questions of the senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, I believe he should have been sworn. That is, obviously, the prerogative of the chairman.
But I would state again, and state strongly for the record, what I've told the chairman privately. I think in this instance, similar to what you did in April with Attorney General Gonzales and Director Mueller, both of whom were sworn, and as the chairman did on -- insisted with then-Attorney General Reno, I believe he should be sworn.
SPECTER: Well, Senator Leahy and I have not disagreed on very much in the more than a year since we've worked together as the ranking and chairman, and I think it's strengthened the committee.
And I did receive your request. And I went back and I dug out the transcript and reviewed Senator Feingold's vigorous cross- examination of the attorney general at the confirmation hearings.
And I know the issues as to torture, which Senator Feingold raised, and the issues which Senator Feingold raised as to searches without warrants.
And I have reviewed the provisions of 18 USC 1001 in the case involving Admiral Poindexter, who was convicted under that provision; and have reviewed the provisions of 18 United States Code 1505, where Oliver North was convicted. And there are penalties provided there commensurate with perjury.
<b>And it is my judgment that it is unnecessary to swear the witness.</b>
LEAHY: But, Mr. Chairman, may I ask, if the witness has no objection to being sworn, why not just do it and then not have this question raised here? I realize only the chairman can do the swearing in.
LEAHY: Otherwise, I'd offer to give him the oath myself, insofar as he said he was willing to be sworn in. But if he's willing to be, why not just do it?
SESSIONS (?): Mr. Chairman...
SPECTER: Well, the answer to why I'm not going to do it is that I've examined all the facts and I've examined the law and I have asked the attorney general whether he would object or mind and he said he wouldn't. And I have put that on the record.
<h3>But the reason I'm not going to swear him in is not up to him. Attorney General Gonzales is not the chairman; I am. And I'm going to make the ruling.</h3>
(CROSSTALK)
LEAHY: I would point out that he's been here before this committee three times. The other two times he was sworn. It seems unusual not to swear him in this time.
FEINGOLD (?): Chairman, I move the witness be sworn.
SPECTER: The chairman has ruled. If there is an appeal from the ruling of the chair, I have a pretty good idea how it's going to come out.
FEINGOLD (?): Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling of the chair.
SPECTER: All in favor of the ruling of the chair, say "aye."
(UNKNOWN): Roll call.
SPECTER: Opposed?
FEINGOLD (?): Ask for a roll call vote.
SPECTER: The clerk will call the roll.
I'll call the roll.
(LAUGHTER)
SESSIONS: Out of the question.
(LAUGHTER)
SPECTER: Senator Hatch?
HATCH: No.
SPECTER: Senator Grassley?
GRASSLEY: No.
SPECTER: Senator Kyl?
KYL: Mr. Chairman, is the question to uphold or to reject the ruling?
SPECTER: The question is to uphold the ruling of the chair, so we're looking for ayes, Senator.
(LAUGHTER)
LEAHY: But we're very happy with the noes that have started on the Republican side, they being the better position.
HATCH (?): I'm glad somebody clarified that.
SPECTER: So the question is, "Should the ruling of the chair be upheld that Attorney General Gonzales not be sworn?"
(CROSSTALK)
SPECTER: By proxy for Senator Brownback, aye.
Senator Coburn?
(CROSSTALK)
SPECTER: We've got enough votes already.
Senator Leahy?
LEAHY: Emphatically, no.
(CROSSTALK)
SPECTER: Aye.
The ayes have it.
FEINGOLD: Mr. Chairman, I request to see the proxies given by the Republican senators.
SPECTER: Would you repeat that, Senator Feingold?
FEINGOLD: I request to see the proxies given by the Republican senators.
SPECTER: The practice is to rely upon the staffers. But without counting that vote -- well, we can rephrase the question if there's any serious challenge of the proxies.
This is really not a very good way to begin this hearing.
SPECTER: But I've found that patience is a good practice here.
SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman (OFF-MIKE) very disappointed that we went through this process.
This attorney general, in my view, is a man of integrity. And having read the questions, as you have, that Senator Feingold put forward, and his answers, I believe he'll have a perfect answer to those questions when they come up at this hearing.
And I do not believe they're going to show he perjured himself in any way or was inaccurate in what he said.
And I remember having a conversation with General Myers and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and one of the saddest days in their career was having to come in here and stand before a Senate committee and raise their hand as if they are not trustworthy in matters relating to the defense of this country.
And I think it's not necessary that a duly confirmed Cabinet member have to routinely stand up and just give an oath when they are, in effect, under oath and subject to prosecution if they don't tell the truth.
I think it's just a question of propriety and good taste and due respect from one branch to the other.
And that's why I would support the chair.
LEAHY: Mr. Chairman, I don't...
SPECTER: Let's not engage in protracted debate on this subject. We're not going to swear this witness, and we have the votes to stop it.
Senator Leahy?
LEAHY: Mr. Chairman, I have stated my position why I believe he should be sworn in. But I understand that you have the majority of votes.
Now, the question for this hearing goes into the illegality of the government's domestic spying on ordinary Americans without a warrant......
|
......and the American voters grew impatient with the lack of accountability, and they voted for change, last november.
This is an example of that "change", manifesting itself, in the US Senate, yesterday:
Quote:
http://www.elpasotimes.com/election/ci_5706839
<center><img src="http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site525/2007/0419/20070419_065350_0419gonzaLES_200.jpg">
<h3>Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is sworn in prior to testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee</h3> in the U.S. Capitol in Washington Thursday, April 19, 2007 about the controversial dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys....</center>
|
....click on the "watch the video" link, in the first quote box, ace. You can watch the republican majority abdicate their constitutional responsibilities and vote away their own political power.......
Last edited by host; 04-20-2007 at 05:25 AM..
|