Comments on: Is Gonzales’ Perjury a Red Herring to Keep Focus off Bush’s Impeachable FISA Violations?

By: Monty Market

Monty Market — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:37:19 +0000

In violating FISA, just who’s phone calls, emails, etc., is Bushco listening to?
-Phone calls from outside and into the US.
Which leads to:
-Phone calls from inside to outside the US.
Which leads to:
-Phone calls from inside to inside the US.
Once his foot is in the door, can there be any doubt that Bushco was also tapping domestic calls without a warrant in violation of the 4th Amendment? As a model of the possible range of the wiretapping, recall that the convicted but later pardoned felon, John Poindexter, while in his neocon sinecure at the Pentagon (subsequently moved to NSA) developed a broad listening program that includes domestic spying. Such domestic phonetaps could include in their wide sweep, say, planning by the 2004 Kerry presidential campaign; or, discussions by Democratic congresspersons opposed to Bushco policies; or opposing legal counsel in a lawsuit.
Here’s a possible indication of the illegal uses: when John Bolton was under consideration for the position of UN ambassador (to which he was later elevated for a time by a recess appointment), recall that he was reported in the press as going over to the National Security Agency to review logs of messages that Secretary of State Powell had made. Because the sweep of calls may include even internal domestic calls, might Mr Bolton, for example, also been interested in what Powell was saying about Bolton’s appointment? Who knows? The possibilities are scary. Once the Congress opens this Pandora’s box, the illegality could be huge.

By: Jim C

Jim C — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:33:49 +0000

The mere fact that this can go on shows we have a severly broken system of checks and balances , not to mention justice .

By: Pat Williams

Pat Williams — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:30:19 +0000

bruiser- Americans WILL be troubled by the Senate trial with Republicans voting to NOT hold Bush accountable for his high crimes. That is the reason Conyers says that Pelosi will not pursue impeachment. Personally, I think it is a mistake. The only way to really defeat the corporatist-controlled Republicans is to impeach and let the nation come face to face with the truth.

By: bruiser

bruiser — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:38:02 +0000

Let’s see, the people don’t want impeachment? Clinton was impeached for a very minor offense with an approval rating, I believe, in the high 60s. Do you really think the 70% of Americans who disapprove of the job Bush is doing will be troubled by Congress holding him accountable for his crimes, some of which he has already admitted?

By: justin lake

justin lake — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:22:26 +0000

it’s a good point, making Gonzales the red herring

why? to buy time, they need time to implement their unknown plans

so….

the question just might be

do they need to time to attack Iran then declare Martial Law here at home?

wait for their ‘own’ dreaded attack here to materialize?

so why is Gonzalez smiling?

Maybe they’ve done it… bought enough time to implement something and therefore they’re all like…. White House plans on schedule, check

that’s a very chilling thought

folks, if what some are saying and Martial Law is declared in the US like in the time of Lincoln, THERE IS NO MORE GOVERMNET and with that no oversight

no one in their right mind thinks Gonzo is that cavalier, he’s utterly in lock step with whatever The President (soon to be Impeached President) says

sends chills down the body politic

it is correct to say see how calm and collected that man is

so… question to the Senate panel

if your witness is buying time for an action that is against the country of the US, and that in itself proposes a massive threat to the functioning of the nation, shouldn’t you then EXPEDITE your preceedings

the White House is BANKING on civility and due process

they are surely not expecting Expediency

FIRE THE BUM, SEND HIM TO THE JUDGE, CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

By: Madison

Madison — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:47:56 +0000

Geez, Randy, listen to Rush much? You have completely bought into the rightwing spin, even though it is doesn’t make sense if you think about it for two minutes. Too bad there aren’t meds for what plagues dittoheads.

US Attorneys are political appointees. That means that Democratic presidents appoint Democratic USAs, and Republican presidents appoint Republican USAs. So Brett is correct: every president fires all the USAs when he takes office, IF the previous president was from the opposing party. George W. Bush fired all of Clinton’s USAs in 2001. Clinton fired all of Daddy Bush’s USAs. Reagan fired all of Carter’s; Carter fired all of Ford’s. Nixon fired all of Johnson’s. See how it works?

What is shockingly different here is that no president has ever fired more than one USA at a time and no president has ever fired a USA for no apparent reason — much less eight or nine of them at once. And no president has ever tried to hide the reasons he fired a USA — until now.

Obviously, Bush is hiding criminal activity related to these firings — apparently involving a massive voter fraud operation that was run out of the White House political office in 2004, just for starters.

If he has nothing to hide, why doesn’t he just say why he fired them?

By: Brett

Brett — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:41:00 +0000

Well, Randy, liberals believe in freedom of speech, and so, even though we disagree with you, we still allow you to speak your mind. Even when it’s contemptous. “Adjust your meds”? That’s really raising the level of political discourse there.

Also, it is custom at the start of his term for the president’s attorneys to submit their resignations. Clinton accepted them, as did Bush. Additionally, just because Clinton may have abused his power doesn’t mean Bush can. Keep that in mind.

As for Gonzales, it is an interesting theory that he is just a red herring to distract us all from the illegal wiretapping. If that’s the truth, then we shouldn’t let Bush and Gonzales succeed. Congress should be able to focus on two scandals at a time.

It’s a disappointment that the Senate Judiciary Committee this year has only seemed to be focusing on the Gonzales scandal, rather than the more serious constitutional crisis posed by the President’s warrantless wiretapping program. Chairman Leahy should be able (and brave) to hold multiple hearings on numerous topics. For the American people and for the future of our country, it’s a shame that that hasn’t happened.

By: randy

randy — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:08:39 +0000

Doubt you will print this, but you liberals have way too much time on your hands. Maybe you should adjust your meds instead of worrying about what Gonzalez said or did not say. No matter what you wish for the country is not going to allow any impeachment and the President can fire any Prosecutor at any time for any reason, ala Clint (fired all 92 including one investigating him).

By: CHAS

CHAS — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:45:13 +0000

RED HERRING is the subject for comment! My comment is Yes, Yes, yes!

Thanks for bringing this up.

By: wingnutjeff

wingnutjeff — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:56:00 +0000

Skyreader7 said “If Bush broke the law, he should be charged. Whatâ€™s the hold up?”

Easy answer, Obstructionist Republicans with no respect for the law or the will of the people.