is everyone enjoying the dog and pony show?

[LSK]

Do you realize this is completely different if the Democrats had the majority in the Senate?

Do you realize Leahy would be the chair and Gonzales would be under oath?

Do you realize that they would be playing video of Gonzales under oath at his confirmation?

Do you realize that they would be playing video of Bush saying that all wiretaps require a court order?

Do you realize that funding for this program could be cut?

Do you realize that there would be no Judge Alito?

Do you realize that 2006 is so crucial?

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Woof!

[Angry Girl]

2. Get rid of Diebold, ES&S and the other rightwing vote counters

and Democracy has half a chance. But otherwise, welcome to Amerika.

[LSK]

4. and none of that is possible when you dont control a branch of govt

Win in 2006. Not all states are victim to these things yet.

[Angry Girl]

10. I hope it's not too late but there are so many signs of history repeating

itself, just like the Germans did -- politely handed over their democracy to a bunch of the most murderous, lying scum ever to walk this Earth. Millions of people died to change things. Millions more suffered irreparable harm.

With the military technology available today, make that hundreds of millions... or more.
:nuke:

[Horse with no Name]

58. But the ones that are are ALWAYS the ones that end up being

the crucial state...
Florida and Ohio.
I am going to go predict that Ohio will be the next one as well since they have all but destroyed any election credibility.

[tatertop]

6. Thaz' right.

[AndyA]

19. I agree - we must have honest voting!

We do not have it without a paper trail!

[ladjf]

31. You have boiled it down to the bare facts. You are correct.

[helderheid]

34. agreed. I'm voting on paper - absentee.

[savemefromdumbya]

3. oh yes!

I'm glad I'm not on that committee or else I would have punched Gonz. in the nose by now. The Democrats are exceedingly patient

[izzie]

5. This is what 51 percent of the voters wanted.

sorry if we see our Constitution go down.

[Justitia]

24. No kidding, WE'RE getting the govt THEY deserve. How depressing. -nt

[cali]

7. Right on all counts

Glad they showed the videos in the press conference.

[DainBramaged]

8. Powerline-Pajama's media

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOL:rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

"Dan Rather knows about it"

What a asshole.

Douche bag supreme.

[0007]

60. The "Dan Rather knows about it" remark as Durbin was walking

away was a threat, sour grapes, or just Jeff being an asshole for his freeper

[The_Casual_Observer]

9. This is going to go the way of the torture issue. In a few weeks

after all the hoop-la, we will find out that they have suspended the wire taps due to questions of legality, and that will be that.

[leftchick]

13. correction, they will SAY they have suspended them

and they will be lying. :(

[Imalittleteapot]

11. Every time I watch this stuff

I get physically ill. Whether it's listening to the lying Republican machine or John Conyers having to hold a hearing, that gets no press, in the Capitol basement . The terrorists are winning. The domestic terrorists, that is.

[BuyingThyme]

12. Do you realize that the Dems are laying down for this

open session?

[LSK]

14. in what way?

Please elaborate.

[BuyingThyme]

18. They are playing soft-ball. They examined the fake

polls which were put before them, and decided to pretend that this is all some misunderstanding.

Kennedy, who I had the highest hopes for, was absolutely pathetic.

Because nobody on the Committee, Democrat or Republican, has any respect for the American people or the Constitution, none of them are asking specific questions about the "program," or how or when it came to be.

This has gone from an impeachable offense to a Dem-assisted whitewash.

[LSK]

26. did you catch Leahy's line of questioning?

Lets see, questions about when it was decided to start the program, questions as to if it applies to US Mail, etc etc.

A dem whitewash? Are you watching CSPAN?

[Justice Is Comin]

29. You are speaking the truth Buying Thyme

I certainly would have preferred Gonzalez under oath and videos accompanying the lies. But in both cases the testimony is before Congress, it will be in the official record and Gonzalez has to respond to the questions or refuse to answer. The only difference is that the testimony is written instead of visual.

Being under oath does not require him to change his answers in the slightest or compel him to answer differently.

If the Democrats on that committee don't get the sound bites that will be played across the MSM, it will be their fault. The witness is in front of them and it's up to them to nail him. So far, I haven't heard anybody put the screws to him.

That is the one thing we cannot fault Specter for, if you give him credit for nothing else. A prosecutor does not get to keep the witness on the stand forever in a trial. If he doesn't make his points in front of the jury when he's got him there, he's screwed.

The jury today is all of America and the Dems better start prosecuting. If we don't, it will be our own damn fault. If clear lies are shown to the satisfaction of the general public, he will be pressured through the public to appear again. Under oath. This is not the only hearing as Specter has already said. Ashcroft will be next.

But put the blame where it belongs. Kennedy, Leahy, Feingold, Feinstein and the rest better make it clear the law was broke and leave no weasel room. Or oath or no oath don't mean shit.

And for those of you who feel the issue of not being sworn is the equivalent of Specter deliberately sabotaging the hearings, let Raw Story tell you.

<clip>

Republican senators refused to put Attorney General Alberto Gonzales under oath in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee about President Bush's clandestine wiretap program, RAW STORY has learned.

The move was first picked up by ThinkProgress. ThinkProgress has the video here.

Testimony before Congress is governed by law, and lies to Congress can be prosecuted as perjury. Technically, individuals need not be under oath to face prosecution. Democrats have focused on having individuals under oath before -- most notably oil executives -- who were found to have lied to a Senate Committee when they said their companies did not take part in secretive meetings with Vice President Dick Cheney on U.S. energy policy. The Washington Post later reported that the executives had been lying.


http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Republican_senators_refuse_to_put_Attorney_0206.html

[BuyingThyme]

32. I think RawStory is way wrong. A person cannot be charged w/ perjury

if he or she was never put under oath.

In other words, I don't think the crime of lying to Congress is equivalent to the crime of perjury. Additionally, the only people who can effectively bring prosecution for the crime of lying to Congress are assumably the people who refused to put Gonzales under oath. Those people will not, under any circumstance, take such action. They've got it rigged on both ends.

[Justice Is Comin]

54. I misspoke as to the term

Perjury requires an oath. This would be "false statements" to Congress. It carries very broad authority and substantial penalty. In fact, according to a law review I read, it has been used 18 times more in prosecution than a statement under oath.

If perjury was committed under oath before Congress, the process for prosecution would still have to start with the committee same as this would.


TITLE 18 SECTION 1001

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the
same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial
proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements,
representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or
counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the
legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a
matter related to the procurement of property or services,
personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a
document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to
the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative
branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the
authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of
the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or
Senate.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=1001

[LSK]

33. how about quoting Findlaw and get back to me, ok?

[BuyingThyme]

36. Why don't you go to FindLaw and look up the word PERJURY.

[LSK]

38. how about US CODE?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_79.html

I see NOTHING about not being sworn in.

[BuyingThyme]

39. Then you didn't read it.

If you actually took the time to read the definition, you would find that one of two requirements must be present; and they're both nothing less than being sworn in:

(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal...
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28...

Why didn't you just read it yourself?

[LSK]

41. 1746

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001746----000-.html

"Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:
(1) If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.
(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”. "

------------------

Will Gonzales be forced to sign to this:

"I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)"

[BuyingThyme]

43. This law is in regards to documentary evidence in court.

[LSK]

44. then which part of the law did i get wrong?

1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal...
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28...

Which applies to Gonzales and why?

[BuyingThyme]

45. Start here:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001001----000-.html

[BuyingThyme]

53. FYI: RawStory corrected the story.

[cali]

17. Actually, NOT

They're doing a damn fine job under tough circumstances. I'm all for handing them their asses when they screw up, but when they do a stand up job, we should say so.

Oh, and if you're going to lob a remark like that one, try at least elaborating. Explain where they're lying down. It's just lazy, to throw something like that out there.

[BuyingThyme]

21. Can you give me an example of what makes this a

"damn fine job?"

Or are you too lazy?

[cali]

28. Leahy's opening statement

wherein he stated unequivocally that bushco broke the law, violated the constitution with domestic warrentless spying. His questioning regarding timing, his refusal to let torture boy ramble on. Biden and Feinstein also did yeoman's work. I suggest you check out Glenn Greenwald's blog for his assessment. You can google it- if you're not too lazy.

[BuyingThyme]

35. I dismiss statements form people who are supposed to investigate.

You can take 'em for what they're worth, I but I think they're worth nothing. I like what they say, but that gets us nowhere.

I want this criminal to be forced to answer to when this "program" began and what is NOT included in this "program."

[cali]

42. Leahy just caught

torture boy in his second round of questioning re Hamdi and timing of the illegal domestic spying. I'm sorry, know I'm not supposed to call you a name, but you're just a fool, pure and simple. The dems have actually done a good job here. Can't see that? You're blind.

[BuyingThyme]

46. You are a moron. The Dems don't even understand what they're

asking questions about. They don't understand what "program" means, and they're either too stupid or too complicit to ask.

[cali]

48. LOL

Your responses really are pathetic. Don't have much to say, do you? You can't respond honestly to anything you've been challenged on, and you're unable or unwilling to elaborate on your accusations. What don't the dems understand? What questions should they be asking? Pray tell us, what is everyone, except for you, missing?

[BuyingThyme]

49. You're the only one missing it, probably because you're a simple person.

Have somebody read these to you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x338700
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x337904
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/6/1496/16402

[cali]

51. Feingold, Schumer and Leahy

addressed this issue. Repeatedly. To discard the entire day is absurd. The hearing process is far from perfect, but demonstrated its worth. What will come of it? Maybe very little. We'll see. You do realize, don't you, that even had the scope of the hearings been broader, the same obstacles would have been extant?

[BuyingThyme]

52. It wasn't the scope of the hearings that was limited; it was the scope

of the Senators. All of them. I expect it from the Pukes, but am very upset at the Dems.

The entire day was a big scam, and the Bush administration will not allow the Committee to return to this. If Dems push for a redo, the administration will make public statements about how Gonzales already answered all of the questions on national television. In reality, they covered nothing.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

55. So you weren't paying attention then?

Not only did Leahy ask several times when the order was first signed, when Gonzo said he didn't know, he told him to come back after lunch with the answer. I missed the last two hours, so I don't know if they called him on it.

[BuyingThyme]

56. Yes, he asked again. But you don't seem to understand that

the "order" is meaningless. The "order" about which Leahy thinks he's inquiring is not the "order" about which Gonzales is responding. That's the point.

[LoZoccolo]

20. Are you saying that we should ignore 2006 then?

Is that it?

[BuyingThyme]

22. Your post makes as much sense as Jeff Sessions.

[LSK]

27. when you make blanket statements about dems laying down

Without backing it up with any substance, you are undermining the effort to elect Dems in the next election.

[BuyingThyme]

37. Only if you support willful ignorance.

[LoZoccolo]

57. Fuck's that supposed to mean?

Wait, don't bother answering that.


:nuke: :hi:

[BuyingThyme]

59. Genius.

[JWS]

15. But I thought Repukes were the Tough on Crime party?

But maybe they're just the "Crime" party.

[LSK]

16. i thought they were the party of smaller govt

You know, the republicans were always against big brother. I guess not.

[stop the bleeding]

23. Yes - it is pitiful n/t

[LiberalAndProud]

25. This is painful to watch.

These mobsters are murdering our constitution one amendment at a time. I am heartsick.

[in_cog_ni_to]

30. It makes me sick. I hope the Dems have learned something from this.

NEVER TRUST A REPUKE. NEVER PLAY FAIR. NEVER HOLD AN OVERSIGHT HEARING FOR A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT. ALWAYS play by their rules.

[incapsulated]

40. No. I refuse to subject myself to it.

I will not watch any more of these "investigative hearings" under rethug leadeship. They are show trials with no oaths and a certain outcome: nothing changes.

2006 is our last chance.

[blm]

47. Excellent post. PRODUCTIVE.

.

[ComerPerro]

50. Yeah, its pretty pointless

Honestly. Why does it matter what thye ask him or what he says. He's not under oath, he is going to lie his ass off...

And why shouldn't he?