Author Topic: Gonzales has resigned (Read 2069 times)

JB88 · « **Reply #75 on:** August 28, 2007, 01:49:32 PM »

i liked truman's philosophy.

"the buck stops here."

john9001 · « **Reply #76 on:** August 28, 2007, 02:12:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by JB88
i liked truman's philosophy.

"the buck stops here."

yeah, good work truman you gave away half of Europe to Stalin and the korean war never ended, it's still under a "cease fire".

democratic war plan, "fight to lose".

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #77 on:** August 28, 2007, 03:29:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by crockett
So now the fact that he either lied to congress or he actually can't remember anything is now the Democrats fault.

I'm waiting for the Iraq invasion to be blamed on the Democrats.. I'm sure in a few years the Right wingers will start blaming that one the Dem's as well.

If you put any value in any Fishing for Perjury charges, then you're beyond my help.

john9001 · « **Reply #78 on:** August 28, 2007, 03:51:37 PM »

Gonzales must have studied the hillary whitewater transcripts, 'i can't recall" and "i don't remember".

JB88 · « **Reply #79 on:** August 28, 2007, 04:08:41 PM »

fast forward john.

we are in a new century now.

crockett · « **Reply #80 on:** August 28, 2007, 04:11:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
If you put any value in any Fishing for Perjury charges, then you're beyond my help.

So you think it's ok to lie under oath?

crockett · « **Reply #81 on:** August 28, 2007, 04:13:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by JB88
i liked truman's philosophy.

"the buck stops here."

The Bush admin's philosophy is..

The Buck stops over there ------->

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #82 on:** August 28, 2007, 04:27:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by crockett
So you think it's ok to lie under oath?

Fishing for Perjury occurs when the investigator is researching the topic solely looking for discrepancies in answers given by those being investigated. The investigator KNOWS that no illegal action took place, yet he proceeds anyway. A discrepancy in the color of pants someone was wearing does not mean he lied under oath. Especially when the answers given were months even years apart.

This is what happened to Libby.

Shuckins · « **Reply #83 on:** August 28, 2007, 06:21:08 PM »

While the argument can be made that Gonzalez was unsuited for the job of Attorney General, those who may be hoping that some sort of legal charges against him might be filed are going to be disappointed.

Legal proceedings would involve his critics in proving their accusations. That would be very problematic for them.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about this brouhaha is that, once again, a zealous investigator can come up with "conflicting testimony" from a man who is being forced to remember and defend statements made over a period of three or four years. Statements that are a small part of thousands of statements made to hundreds of different colleagues within a department of the government.

None of us could fully protect ourselves under such circumstances.

jhookt · « **Reply #84 on:** August 28, 2007, 06:38:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Fishing for Perjury occurs when the investigator is researching the topic solely looking for discrepancies in answers given by those being investigated. The investigator KNOWS that no illegal action took place, yet he proceeds anyway. A discrepancy in the color of pants someone was wearing does not mean he lied under oath. Especially when the answers given were months even years apart.

This is what happened to Libby.

so leaking classified information to the press isn't illegal?

and as far as Gonzalez goes, wrongful termination of employment is against the law. but i've never heard of being charged for fishing for perjury, IIRC Gonzalez was testifying for his involvment in the firings, i don't remember him getting charged for firing someone.

john9001 · « **Reply #85 on:** August 28, 2007, 06:52:12 PM »

Gonzalez is smarter than libby, libby tried to answer the questions and got some things wrong but Gonzalez used the clinton defense of "i don't recall".

JB88 · « **Reply #86 on:** August 28, 2007, 07:06:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
Gonzalez is smarter than libby, libby tried to answer the questions and got some things wrong but Gonzalez used the clinton defense of "i don't recall".

you mean the "reagan" defense of "i don't recall" right?

john9001 · « **Reply #87 on:** August 28, 2007, 07:26:57 PM »

reagan was a delegator, he left the details to his underlings, so he may not have known all the details.

JB88 · « **Reply #88 on:** August 28, 2007, 07:32:50 PM »

that's bunk. if reagan didnt know what was going on with iran-contra, then he should have rolled some of his underlings heads once he learned of it...i highly doubt he didnt know.

still,better a "delegator" by far...than a "decider."

Stringer · « **Reply #89 on:** August 28, 2007, 07:50:00 PM »

This is Karl Rove politics coming back to bite the GOP......