He lied under oath. plain and simple. He said during 3 different hearings, the last time last week, that he did not know, or could not recall who made the list of attorneys to be fired. Now today, AFTER McNulty resigned, he said it was McNullty's fault. So that was perjury during the hearings. He did recall, but refused to say, and lied about it. Clinton got impeached over a lie. Bye Bye Gonzales?
2007-05-15 06:09:49 · 10 answers · asked by whydoesyahusuk 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If he said he couldn't remember and then said he remembered later, you can't know or prove he was lying. Only someone from his office can provide proof that he committed perjury, his statements alone prove nothing.
I would like to see Congress pass a law which allows them to fire a member of the President's Cabinet with a 2/3 vote.
2007-05-15 06:13:12 · answer #1 · answered by Kinetic Nebula 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Impeachment is a political act. Without the political will, it will not and cannot go forward.
Proving Gonzales is guilty of perjury would be tricky. You would not only have to prove that he DELIBERATELY lied, but that his lie was absolutely GERMAINE to the case. More, you would have to prove he didn't make a mistake or that he actually remembered things he says he didn't. That is one reason perjury is so hard to prove (Clinton was charged with Obstruction of Justice, not perjury).
On the other hand, I'm personally in favor of the entire Bush administration resigning en masse. Just because their policies have been so incompetent.
2007-05-15 13:22:46 · answer #2 · answered by zahir13 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I were McNulty, I would have left with a golden parachute wrapped up and packed away, this is not different than the army personnel taking the fall for the prison torture in Iraq. Everyone all the way to the top including the commanders and chief knew and were on board with what was going on and it did not affect Rummy or anyone else like the puppet boss of BushCo
2007-05-16 08:42:21 · answer #3 · answered by controlac 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gonzales is a piece of trash for using McNulty as a scapegoat. That is so weak to divert attention from yourself to someone else just because they are leaving already.
2007-05-15 13:23:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clinton lied out of embarrasment and to keep it from his family, like any cheating husband would. These people are lying about their jobs. There's a big difference. Wolfowitz is next. the guy was picked by bush to head the world bank out of corruption and he ended up the most corrupt. They're falling left and right like flies.
2007-05-15 13:24:11 · answer #5 · answered by TJTB 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He should be tried for perjury. I can't wait to hear what McNulty has to say about Gonzales' testimony.
2007-05-15 13:14:23 · answer #6 · answered by katydid 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Leave him there a little longer, any move that is made by Bush concerning this matter will only make the Bush administration look worse and help the Democrats out.
Go Gonzo!!
2007-05-15 13:14:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
It could be an option. McNulty as his sacrificial lamb isn't going to cut it. Gonzales is toast, as he should be.
2007-05-15 13:19:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No perjury would have been if he stated a name, then changed it. Not if he states that he doesn't remember then some how remembers later. Wrong again lib.
2007-05-15 13:13:15 · answer #9 · answered by mbush40 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Since it was only perjury and not even obstruction of justice on top of that, why punish him? You libs cheered when Bubba walked for the same thing.
2007-05-15 13:14:34 · answer #10 · answered by Lavrenti Beria 6 · 1⤊ 5⤋