All about life, liberty and the pursuit of hopeiness.
| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
Transcripts of today’s Senate Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on warrantless wiretaps
I’ve not had a chance to read them all the way through and wanted to post links for others who, like me, couldn’t watch the hearings today.
Click here for the first transcript and here for the second. Here’s part three.
Anyone here get a chance to watch any of this today?
RSS feed for comments on this post.
27 Responses to “Transcripts of today’s Senate Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on warrantless wiretaps”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
oooh Thank you. I was going to search for them.
By the way, saw this over at Michelle Malkin’s place and wondered, what the heck this was about:
Link
“0940am. There is a spat right off the bat over Specter’s decision not to swear Gonzales in.”
That’s when you could tell that all of specter’s grandstanding up till the hearings was just for show.
Yeah, well not sure what game Spectre is playing.
Was curious if anyone could shed some light on that.
Thanks ST!
Plenty of light Sanity and Andrew.
Andrew irresponsibly wrote (again)…… because
Simple Reading Comprehension shows Andrew that it wasn’t for show. Did you know Andrew that people have been convicted under the US Code Section 1505? Will you start being more responsible?
Ah. How we went after the Iran Contra liars. Well 1001 at least. 1505 looks like its about obstruction, not lying.
So what is the point of Oaths?
But if Gonzales is testifying before Congress, should he not be sworn in?
I am not pointing fingers, but if what he is testifying isn’t under oath, then what good is the testimony?
We are trying to show what we say to be true, then we should not act like we are trying to pass falsehoods off. Swear witnesses in, question them, and then move on. If they lie, then that is on them.
As for what I meant about shedding light on that, I was curious as to why Spectre wouldn’t swear him in, what was his reasoning and what was going on with that.
Andrew, as I recall, we went after the Iran Contra Heroes.
The Iran Contra Liars — The NYTwit, CBS News, ABC News, NCB News, the National Democratic Committee — were never investigated.
“The Iran Contra Liars — The NYTwit, CBS News, ABC News, NCB News, the National Democratic Committee — were never investigated.”
Nor where they ever offered immunity for their crimes.
andrew, maybe it is time to start prosecuting the “The Iran Contra Liars”, as well as the current day liars like Mary Mapes and Dan Rather.
sanity, he is under no obligation to be sworn in. That is his right. Swearing a person in does not mean you are going to get the truth.. As a side note though….I have more a problem with the questioneers than the swearing in. We have Biden and Kennedy both thrown out of their respective schools for cheating, and they are questioning the truth telling of another person?
Here is a good article supporting my theory that the Keystone Kops are in charge…
Specter was talking about the kerfuffle over whether to swear in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before his testimony. But he could have been talking about the parameters he had agreed to for the hearing: No witnesses other than Gonzales. No new details of the National Security Agency spying program that the committee was supposed to be inquiring about. No request for the Justice Department’s internal legal memorandums about the legality of the NSA program.
Andrew asked but do we really need to tell him, “So what is the point of Oaths?
Hint: You had it backwards!!!
Nods.
Thank you Pam.
I was curious at why Spectre seemed to be getting difficult here for some reason, and was curious as to why. Unfortunately Michelle posted that adn then left it hang with no further update that I could see, so was a bit confused as to what was really going on. Hence the question asked within here on it.
Hint: Grandstanding and political (you mentioned the wrong person(s)
An interesting twist would be to have these senators sworn under oath to ask and tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I think their tongues would fall out of thier heads.
Be interesting to say the least, especially if they decided to play politics with the hearings and spread lies posed as questions.
Would also be nice if there was actual question involved in hearings and even in Judicial Hearings (like Roberts and Alito) and no grandstanding by senators. If you don’t ask a question within a short amount of time and allow the person to respond, then you forfiet you time.
Yes, I beleive that would be a good idea.
I agree with you sanity..the judicial hearings were a joke. I believe Sister posted the amount of words used ie Biden vs nominee and it was astronomical. The point was for the committee to HEAR what the nominee had to say..not visa versus!
Specter told Gonzales that the administration is in serious trouble and might help itself by bringing their spy program to the FISA Court for review. bush, broke the law, he admitted that he broke the law and he said he will continue to braek the law. Specter told Gonzales, that bush had better get right with Jesus ’cause the fire was about to come down. In otherwords impeachment is just around the corner. Peace
Pam, Biden has not learned that his mouth is not a listening organ.
steve, you only wish. that is all you got because it ain’t gonna happen.
No? Then why is Rove out and about threatening Republicans? Peace
steve, you got a URL, or are you just spewing your personal delusions again.
Insight, an outfit run by the moonie washington times, has a link for you.
“Congressional sources said Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has threatened to blacklist any Republican who votes against the president. The sources said the blacklist would mean a halt in any White House political or financial support of senators running for re-election in November.”
I would like to learn about Rove threatening people too Steve. Tell us more! Freedom
Even IF Rove is threatening to withraw support from any republican who votes against the President….isn’t that thier right?
If soemone is voting against me, I should have the right to not help them when they want it.
No doubt. I would just like to hear about it
Also I like ending my posts with a certain word tat is anathema for Steve. Know what it is? Freedom