Gonzales not required to take oath??
Posted By: MTRE on 2006-02-08
In Reply to:
That just beats all. Why even have him testify if he is not required to tell the truth UNDER OATH? Not too hard to figure out where this is all coming from - reminds one of the way Bush visited with the 9/11 commission but refused to be put under oath.
The question is, and always has been - why is this administration so terrified of telling the truth?
The word is that Rove is threatening to withdraw all Republican funding and support from any Republican senator or representative who fails to fall in line with the administration's ambition of unbridled above-the-law autonomy. If they so much as make a peep about protecting the Constitution rather than dear leader, they're dead in the water. It's kind of pathetic watching them all sweat and stutter and grovel, heh - might even be entertaining if it wasn't such an important issue.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Cheney and Gonzales indicted? sm
Applauding this one. Link below.
http://www.krgv.com/2008/11/18/1001457/Guerra-Indicts
Taxpayers will pay for Gonzales' private attorney
This is incredible.
Lawyers from the Justice Department's civil division often represent department employees who're sued in connection with their official actions. However, Gonzales' attorney recently revealed in court papers that the Justice Department had approved his request to pay private attorney's fees arising from the federal lawsuit.
Dan Metcalfe, a former high-ranking veteran Justice Department official who filed the suit on behalf of eight law students, called the department's decision to pay for a private attorney rather than rely on its civil division "exceptional."
"It undoubtedly will cost the taxpayers far more," he said.
According to a person with knowledge of the case, the Justice Department has imposed a limit of $200 an hour or $24,000 a month on attorneys' fees. Top Justice Department attorneys generally earn no more than $100 per hour. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.
Asked why Gonzales made the request, Gonzales spokesman Robert Bork Jr. said that his client "values the work that the department's civil attorneys do in all cases" but thinks that "private counsel can often be useful where (department) officials are sued in an individual capacity, even where the suit has no substantive merit."
Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said the department wouldn't have any comment on the reasons for the approval and wouldn't answer questions about the cost to taxpayers.
look up def of required
The last time I knew "required" meant mandatory. And that WAS right off of is website, that is until people, that are not cloudy over O, started complaining about the "required" word and they changed it. But he is trying to get away with it. Talk to me in a year and tell me how you feel then. If I am wrong, I will admit it. Will you?
Oath
He was nervous folks, wouldn't you be in front of millions? For Pete's sake, he has only been president since noon. Let the man take office and see what he can do. Lots of talk shows, etc., have been griping about him since November. Pretty lousy since he didn't take office until today. No, not one person can solve the world's problems, but let us pray that President Obama at least tries, not like the last 8 years.
Oooh, under OATH
Too bad Clinton didn't do what BUSH does routinely and simply REFUSE to be put under oath (9/11 commission? Have a cozy little chat, did they). Hard to slam anyone for lying under oath when they feel they are so above the law of the land that they aren't subject to taking the oath in the first place - and why should they have to when they've made it perfectly clear that anyone who even THINKS about opposing them is going to suffer - big time.
And haha - we're supposed to believe the SCOTUS is a moral authority on anything? Haha! They dumped their reputations in the toilet on the day they dirtied the Constitution by taking it upon themselves choose the next president rather than allowing the people of the United States to follow due process of law in electing their own president. If you're looking for noble champions of the people whose opinions you can cite to make your case, they aren't it. We all saw what they did, and history will record their shameful and traitorous ruling and will not be kind to them.
By the way, how's that overturning of Roe v. Wade going?:)
I didn't know anyone was required to
x
The president did an oath do over
with Roberts. I would think he was actually very nervous, which is understandable. Personally, I would have said every name but my own trying to get past I...(state your name). There is a Washington City Paper article about a law professor that states that Condoleeza Rice was actually president for a whole minute before Joe Biden was sworn in because they were running late, then Biden was president for a whole three minutes before Obama was sworn in. So the author states that Condoleeza Rice was actually the first female AND first black president. I don't know how much validity is given to this paper, but it is an interesting article so far. Obama was not the first president to flub the oath and apparently the reason for the do-over is because the constitution states the oath must be said word for word as it is written. The only thing that changes is your name.
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/01/20/remember-when-biden-was-president/
Every politician should be required...
To take one year of American history and one year of world history before ever being allowed to run for any kind of public office. Then maybe they wouldn't keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
No one should ever be required to say a pledge to anyone or anything.
Pledges are personal choices. Being forced to recite one is the opposite of freedom.
Every child in every classroom has the right to refuse to pledge.
Lying under oath is just that.
Lying under oath. There are no exceptions to this rule regardless of whether Bill's action on the side was our business or not. If he was so worried about protecting his daughter, he should have kept his pecker in his pants and away from Monica's mouth. He lied under oath...period.
required to hate??
What Christian religion is that - mine sure does not require me to hate. Mine teaches me to love. And yes, it is quite possible to hate the sin and love the sinner. That is what God does every day. Ask anyone who has ever loved a drug addict, an abuser, someone who lied, someone who shoplifted something, etc., etc., etc. You can hate their behavior but still love the person. And of course it is judging to say something is disgusting. that is your opinion, not everyone else's. Thus, it is a judgment, not a fact. Have you yourself never sinned in any way? Did you expect people to them hate you because they may have hated what you did? Of are you above everyone else?
Perjury - lying under oath - How is it that
Bush swearing on the Bible and breaking his oath to the American people is "no big deal." Generalities, don't have all night to type here. Just answering that Clinton lied about sex, but Bush took us into an absolutely unfounded war for no good reason, with no good intelligence, Cheney knew in 1994 what would follow an invasion into Iraq, an absolute disaster of foreign policy, so I cannot give Bush any respect. And I do agree that the Dems who voted to give Bush free reign should not be voted back into office, and for your information, I, for one, will not vote for Hilary for the aforementioned reason. Our country has changed immensely in the last six years with all of this policital strife, the hate that Bush has evoked here and around the world, and the shame he has commanded. My prayer is that he does absolutely nothing for the next year and couple of months. Wish the windshield cowboy would take a long drive back to Crawford.
No effort required. Just one finger.
(And that would be the middle one, of course.)
Why not? The basic minimum that should be required. nm
.
Whistleblowers on this were required to monitor
their spouses, for starters, and also conversations of Doctors without Borders and Red Cross personnel (aid workers). The conversations were recorded. Legally speaking, this falls under the category of search and seizure and requires a warrant showing just cause. If that sounds familiar, it should, since right to privacy and protections against unreasonable search and seizure are encoded in the Constitution. There are a number of privacy issues that come into play available to illustrate what a slimey, slippery slope this can be. Suffice to say that what we have here is a government agency behaving as voyeurs, abusing their power, thumbing their noses at the law and violating the constitutional rights of Americans serving our country. I am grappling for an explanation that justifies such offensive behavior. Eqally as disturbing is the notion that that some Americas with entrenched post-911 Patriot Act mentality accept this as status quo.
I see he couldn't even repeat the oath...
of office without it being repeated for him twice. Get the teleprompters ready!
What oath did he break? He swore to uphold the law of...
the United States. He has not broken that. I am not his biggest fan; there are a lot of things he has done that I do not agree with. There are many things he has done that I do agree with. I had a problem with a lot of the things Clinton did, but I did not hate the man. I absolutely do not understand the personal hatred some of you people feel for him. It just seems unreasonable and totally out of whack. Especially since he is gone no matter who is elected. Kinda wasted effort to expand all that energy hating someone.
What if Hillary is the Dem candidate and it is her or a Republican? You will vote for her then, right...? lol
Doctor's take the Hippocrates oath and have to abide...sm
by it or have their license pulled. It may not be illegal but is unethical. It is hard for me to believe a doctor would risk his license by talking about this on tape on the record. Do you have a verifiable source?
Again, doctors take the Hippocratic oath, do no harm etc. nm
.
If a doctor truly believed his hippocratic oath he would not be...
killing babies for ANY reason other than to save the life of the mother.
If they wear red, white and blue, they are not REQUIRED to
.
FYI. Joe the unlicensed required to be licensed in Ohio.
Joe the unlicensed's 15 minutes has raised the ire of Tom Joseph, business manager for Local 50 of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters, and Service Mechanics of Ohio, who claimed that Joe didn’t undergo any apprenticeship training. "When you have guys going out there with no training whatsoever, it’s a little disreputable to start with," Mr. Joseph said. "We’re the real Joe the Plumber." "This individual has got no schooling, no licenses, he’s never been to a training program, union or nonunion, in the United States of America," Mr. Joseph said. Working for a licensed plumber does not quite cut it.
Wondering if your husband has read Obama's plan for small business, for example the Making Work Pay tax credit (not a rate cut, a direct tax credit)? There is a lot of information there under issues and subheading economics. There is a section there on small business. Not a good idea to buy into the spreading the wealth mantra without that information.
The exposure of Joe the Plumber as a sham makes one raise the question of his autheticity and the possibility of his being a McCain campaign plant at that rally. The bigger picture on this is that Joe himself is being exploited by McCain's campaign (currently not something he is enjoying, having lost his privacy) in their assertions that they will look after the interests of the working class. Flies in the face of the fact that McCain himself has not even spoken the phrase middle class out of his own mouth. The "welfare" rhetoric characterizing spread the wealth as socialism sounds a bit hostile toward the middle class...the economic class of most small business owners he claims to be so concerned about.
REQUIRED IN ORDER TO GET THE COLLEGE CREDIT! NM
x
When originally posted on the web site, it said it was required ..
I have seen the images before and after ...
you can bet my kid will do it if there is a tax credit ...
but hey -- guess what? He does stuff anyway without being forced or bribed ...
required and mandatory if you want the $4000 for college - nm
x
also, Obama did not flub the oath - the justice did - nm
x
You always forget the phrase *under oath*, which is what lost him his law license sm
and the respect of the Supreme Court Justices who for the first time in history, did not attend the State of the Union address of a sitting president. But I guess all that is okay, too.
So you have no problem that he put his hand on a Bible and lied under oath? nm
|
