Skip to comments.Editorial: (Senator) Feingold (D, WI) Pins Gonzales (More Liberal Daydreaming...)
Posted on 02/06/2006 12:24:28 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
When the Senate Judiciary Committee begins the most important oversight hearing in recent congressional history this week, Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold will go after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for what appears to be a deliberate deception of the committee and Congress.
This is not a political game. This is not posturing to score ideological or intellectual points.
By every measure, Feingold has the goods on Gonzales.
In advance of the Judiciary Committee hearings on President Bush's authorization of the warrantless wiretapping of the telephones of Americans, Feingold sent a letter to Gonzales asking that the attorney general prepare to explain why, during his confirmation hearings in January 2005, he responded by saying "it's not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes" - a statement that appears to have been a lie.
In his letter, Feingold recalls an exchange during the confirmation hearings in which he specifically asked if Gonzales felt the Bush administration had the authority to authorize warrantless wiretaps in violation of statutory prohibitions. According to the transcript of the exchange, the nominee attempted to avoid answering by dismissing it as "hypothetical."
But Feingold did not let Gonzales dodge the question. The senator pressed him on the matter until Gonzales finally responded, "Senator, this president is not - it's not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes."
Feingold continued the line of questioning, asking, "Finally, will you commit to notify Congress if the president makes this type of decision and not wait two years until a memo is leaked about it?"
Gonzales answered: "I will commit to advise the Congress as soon as I reasonably can, yes, sir."
In his letter to Gonzales, Feingold writes, "In light of recent revelations that the president specifically authorized wiretapping of Americans in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and did so years prior to your confirmation hearing at a time when you were White House counsel, I find this testimony misleading, and deeply troubling. I will expect a full explanation at the hearing."
Gonzales is not an honest man, especially with regard to questions of abuses of power by the president. So it is a given that he will attempt to avoid answering Feingold's questions, and if he is pressed there is every reason to believe that he will attempt once more to deceive Congress.
But it certainly appears that, this time, the attorney general has been caught in his web of lies.
Feingold is right to hold him to account, and the rest of the members of the Judiciary Committee need to back up the senator from Wisconsin. That goes especially for Republicans on the committee, including Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Specter deserves credit for calling the hearing, which had been billed as an examination of "Wartime Executive Power and the NSA's Surveillance Authority" but is really an inquiry into this White House's assaults on the Constitution. But, knowing what he now knows about past lies to the committee, Specter cannot allow this hearing to become another vehicle for executive branch spin and deception.
If Gonzales refuses to cooperate with the committee, he should be sanctioned. If he is proved to have lied to the committee or to have deliberately thwarted its dictates, then appropriate steps should be taken to remove Gonzales from a position of public trust that he has chosen to abuse.
You have been given your assignment, and are hereby dismissed to carry it out.
Feingold: "WaaWaaWaa, I wanna be on the ticket for President."
Has anyone ever seen Feingold and Algore in the same room at the same time ?
Fred Barnes just said it, "FISA did not amend the Constitution."
Then look in the mirror...
Feingold couldn't "pin" the tail on the donkey. On second thought, perhaps he could........what a jackass!!
You really need to do your homework on this subject, dude.
You're making a fool out of yourself.
The only way Feingold can make the claim he has made is for him to have presumed guilt, which is of course contrary to the concept of our justice system.
I'll try not to be sarcastic while answering your question.
The answer is: Could it be because you're wrong, and we're right??
"Any idiot can see that this was illegal."
Russ? Russ Feingold? I've asked you time and again to keep your hystrionics and name calling off of my threads...even if they are "all about you." ;)
So let me get this straight. The precedents mentioned showed that Presidents have considerable wartime powers under the Constiution.
FISA was passed by the Legislature.
Therefore the Executive has to live by it even though it encroaches on his Constitutional powers.
SCOTUS has ruled that a branch of government cannot even voluntarily give up its powers to another branch in its decision over the line-item veto. What makes you think that one branch can control the terms of another branch exercising its enumerated powers?
You've been here for a little over two months. We'll see if you really are a fellow conservative. But given your posts on this thread showing an abject ignorance of how the three branches of government interact with each other, I'm not sure how your conservative bona fides will hold up.
You should know.
Boston Republican aka Dares of Phrygia aka MCHawking, LaPieta, Secularist, Latte Drinker, I Heart NY, Lord Erudite, Bayezid, The Venerable Bede, StrongSadNJ, Benedictine, thewicked, albeit, ThePottenti, nexus2004, Leibniz2005, leibniz, Roy Batty, Elias Tate, Rodion Romanovich, Arkady Svidrigailov, Herb Asher, Palmer Eldritch, Horselover Fat, R. Deckard, Timothy Archer, Lycaon, AiasBig, Carl Carlson, Lenny Leonard, JoeyJoeJoeJr...Shabadoo, Atrides, RefusenixRefusenix, g.leibniz, Raskolnikov, raskol, raskolnik, AiasMedium, gagortion, El Bombastic, refusenixx, priam, Kali, cronus, iliketheconstitution, freedomlovingamerican, s.pepys, christopherwren, c.wren, leibniz, r.hooke, sminder, dourtboy, indiependance, dirtbouy, PeteyCoops, petecoop2, supermann, superslaw, peteycooper, frostilicus, capt.amer., dirtboi, PeteCoop, PeterCooperRules, refusenix, S.Pajamas, ericnoyes, johnnythrilldo, t.frost2, T.D.Frost, T.Frost, et al, zotted again.
What memo ???
I haven't heard anything about a memo leaked on the wiretapping
Cool! I was Troll Bait and I didn't even know it, LOL! Thanks, Mr. Robinson. :)
"What memo? I haven't heard anything about a memo leaked on the wiretapping."
Uht-Oh! I think Russ just accidentally tipped his hand. Good catch. He's probably putting in overtime tonight, typing one up on the same typewriter that CBS news (et al) used to produce their "fake but accurate" memos, LOL!
I'll bet he's tea-dying it right now to make it look "aged."
Man, I'm killin' myself here! LOL!
HINT: She's the bored-looking one on the left....
Here is a question for you...
Why are Republican lawmakers were so adamant that Alberto Gonzales testimony be NOT under oath? Is is an example of serving the people and serving truth? Why don't they want
to him to be under oath?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.