Gonzales testifies — without being under oath

February 6, 2006

How did the hearing on warrantless searches begin this morning? With a fight over whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should testify under oath. Big surprise — every Republican on the Judiciary Committee agreed that he should not be sworn in, while every Dem argued he should be. Since Republicans outnumber the Dems, Gonzales is testifying now without being under oath.

Committee Chairman Specter said this is “really not a very good way to begin this hearing.” His point was that it was unfortunate to have the committee fight over this, but I agree — for an entirely different reason.

Think Progress has the video of the flap.

He’s already a proven liar. Why bother swearing him in? A Republican’s word isn’t worth the breath that forms it. It’s just dead air.

  • Gonzo said he would voluntarily take the oath as his “answers would be the same whether I was under oath or not.”

    They still didn’t have him take it.

  • There was a similar situation back when the oil executives were testifying — and ended up lying about whether they’d met with Cheney.

    Aren’t there rules and precedents about whether people testifying before Congress should be sworn in? I don’t remember such controversies from previous administrations. Is this yet another case in which the Republicans have discarded longstanding traditions simply because it’s convenient and they can get away with it?

    AYM, swearing him in means he could theoretically be charged with perjury later if he lies. That does make a difference.

  • I’ll take money that the MSM doesn’t report that he didn’t testify under oath. If they do, I’m sure that one of the Republican talking points will be that he’s above reproach….Texas Supreme Court, Attorney General, short list for The Supreme Court, etc.

    Above reproach………..Yeah right! Tell that to the anyone that may be effected by the Geneva Convention, which Mr. Gonzales finds “trivial”.

  • Forgot all the name calling.

    How can the Democrats use this situation to their advantage in showing the Administration can’t be trusted?

    If you won’t force the attorney general to tell the truth when he was already on record before the same committee saying these things didn’t take place then…

    Shouldn’t the Democrats be able to figure a way to show the public that the current system doesn’t work?

  • The United States has a president who believes that he is above the law. We also have an Attorney General who ignores the law. We have an adminisration that has no use for international law. And we now have a Republican Congress whose contempt for the law is pervasive–from Rep. Tom DeLay’s scheme to fund the redistricting of Texas to Senate committees failing to obtain sworn testimony.

    By George, what the hell is happening to this country: George W. Bush, George Orwell (1984), George Romero (Night of the Living Dead).

  • Well, his big lie, the one pushed by Feingold, did come under oath. The question now is whether he says anything that contradicts his prior statement–my prediction is that he “doesn’t remember” certain dates and times. In addition, if he does say anything misleading or wrong, complaints can still be brought to the state bar’s that he belongs to–it would be interesting to have an AG who’s license has been revoked because he lied to Congress even if it isn’t under oath.

  • For all of Specter’s “skepticism” about warrantless wiretaps, the hearings really are nothing more than cover for the Bush administration. They might as well end the hearings now, because nothing substantive can come out of this. Hopefully, the Democrats can make use of this during the election.

    Earlier this year, the religious right was going to block Specter’s committee chairmanship. What did he promise the White House to get the seat?

  • it seems the congressional radicals have started yet another social movement:

    the RIGHT TO LIE movement.

    recall that the oil executives were not required to be sworn in in their congressional testimony.

    why take this tact?

    to prevent the public from knowing the truth.

    if sworn in, the individuals testifying, like gonzales, would either have to perjure themselves or they would have to tell the truth.

    telling the truth would not be good for the republican party and the white houses.

    lying under oath would not be good for the individual republicans who would have to lie.

    any other examples of the newly established

    RIGHT TO LIE

    to congress and the american people??

  • The Dems really need to push the fact that the Repubs won’t swear people in because they are *afraid* to do so. They know they’re being lied to and they just want to hide it as long as possible.

    The entire Democratic delegation to that committee (and all others, frankly) should start referring to the other side as “Yellow Elephants” for their cowardice. Maybe we can get better results through righteous ridicule than by rational arguments.

  • I think the entire Democratic delegation to Congress should start referring to their opponents with simple words: “liars”, “baby killers”, “mass murderers”, thieves, and so on.

  • So how do the Dems use their time? Kennedy decided to go on and on about how in the old days, when a president needed a new law or an existing one changed, they would just ask congress. He goes on and on and on, using up valuable time. His question? Why didn’t Bush ask us to modify FISA? The answer? Bush doesn’t need FISA, and isn’t breaking the law. With such a predictable answer, why did Kennedy waste so much time?

    Let’s face it, Kennedy is a loser. Shame on the Dems for not being better prepared (again). It’s embarrassing.

  • “Confucius say: Disreputable man cannot lie under oath if he is not under oath.”

    Looks like the Republicans have been studying Eastern Philosophy. Does the Religious Right know about this?

  • It’s like they learned one lesson from Clinton’s impeachment and took it to heart– it’s not the lying that is the problem, it’s the lying under oath.

    Result? They very very rarely say anything under oath, never promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.

    Scumbags.

  • Steven Duffy Smith,

    By “baby killers” I’m referring to our government’s wanton and giddy bombing of Afghani and Iraqi citizens. The “shock and awe” the Pentagon and government chickenhawks dance around about while giving each other “high fives” as brown civilians get blown to bits.

    If I wanted to refer to the other meaning you hint at I would use the term “fetus killers” or, more appropriatly, just “abortions”. I don’t know of anyone – including the abortionist and the woman who must make that choice – who “high fives” the event.

    • Comments are closed.