Is there any way for Alberto Gonzalez to avoid a perjory charge?

Question

It turns out that Gonzalez 'could not remember' going to John Ashcroft in the hospital to get him to sign documents regarding warrentless wire-taps, and Ashcroft refusing. Quite a day, Ascroft lying there wired up to IV's, saying, 'No, I won't do that...' and Gonzales trying to force the signature out of him...

Oh yeah, hard to remember that kind of thing.

Is this the line of truth that cannot be crossed. Even Republicans are saying this is a hopeless liar who runs, of all things, Justice.

Impeachment is necessary in this observer's opinion. If you disagree, who have you rationalized perjory?

wow ppmnt, that's a stretch: It's just another way of saying, "If you can prove I did that, then hell, I'm sorry, but if you can't, I'm sure as hell not going to admit to it."

It's actually another way, "I'm not going to answer." I can't remember, when you obviously can, is still a lie. And lying is perjury.

cyanne: that's all very confident sounding legalese you're offering there, but let me ask you. If you were in a court of law and you answered I don't remember to every single question put to you, do you think either judge or jury would be inclined to leniency? Why should a man who by all accounts SHOULD remember a little of what happens around him
be held to a lower standard than an ordinary citizen.

Answer 1

He could resign, but that would bring another problem. We thought Bush couldn't find a worse Attorney General than Ashcroft, but he did. Who knows what crooked Texas Politico he would appoint next.

Answer 2

Although I think it is reprehensible, and I do agree with you, it won't happen. There is almost no way to prove that he "remembers" doing it. He didn't say that he didn't do it, only that he didn't remember doing it. In our courts, it comes down to the burden of proof which is carried by both parties. For perjury, the prosecution would have to provide proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Gonzales actually did remember doing the act. There's no way to do that. Gonzales only has to create a reasonable doubt in his own defense, and that's an easy bar to hurdle. Our system of justice is designed to only convict the guilty (though that may not be how it works). The people we can be certain are absolutely guilty. We presume the defendant innocent, and this is why the "reasonable doubt" standard.

Answer 3

I agree with you that it does seem hard for someone to forget something like visiting the AG in the hospital to get him to sign off on something. But when Gonzales says "I don't remember" the burden of proof is on you to prove that he's lying. A line like "I don't remember", which was also used in Libby's case, conveniently absolves the person from talking about the incident or being liable for what they say. It's not right, but you don't have perjury without a doubt.

Answer 4

No, he could no longer renounce because of political stress. He did no longer some thing incorrect as each AG has fired political appointees and each appointee is well-known with that they serve on the excitement of the president. All presidents contained in the previous have performed this by their AG. that's all a man made scandal by technique of the political competition and that i'm shocked that the media participates in such political nonsense by technique of reporting it. i'm apolitical. In Christ Fr. Joseph

Answer 5

Was he even sworn in? I don't know.
And not remembering is not the same thing as lying. It's just another way of saying, "If you can prove I did that, then hell, I'm sorry, but if you can't, I'm sure as hell not going to admit to it."