Why believe me when I said I loved you when you know I've been a liar all my life?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

He said, "I can't answer such a hypothetical question". Calling the situation "hypothetical" when you know it's not is a lie.

Speech parsing is fun.

The question Senator Feingold asked (if he was unaware of the program already in place) was in fact a hypothetical question. If I asked you how you would respond if your mother developed breast cancer is no less hypothetical on my part if it turns out you learned yesterday that your mother has breast cancer.

See, all squared away.

That said, if Russ Feingold did know of the program than he had no business asking the question in a public forum. Following the puplic testimony of appointment nominations there is always a closed door session where questions on classified and otherwise non-disclosable topics can be discussed.

If you want to point out the lie in this statement:

"that it was impossible to answer such a hypothetical question"

It would be in the use of the word "impossible." Of course it is possible to answer such a hypothetical question. To do so might be illegal, unethical, impractical, or without value, but it remains possible.

Since the Washington Post article mostly paraphrases the statements involved I wanted to look at the record. I can't find the exchange mentioned in the transcript of Gonzales' testimony. The parts of this exchange mentioned in the article are not quite so clearly connected. Feingold asks the wiretap question as part of a five-part question. Gonzales answers in regard to just one part of that (about torture) and then Feingold asks another broad question and it is in response to this that Gonzales makes the "hypothetical" statement. After quite a bit more exchange, Gonzales then makes the "it's not the policy or agenda" statement.

All that said, of course Gonzales was trying to get through the hearing without sharing what he really thinks on any particular topic. It is a dispicable way to do business but has been true of an increasing number of appointment posts over the last 20 years. I await the first president to come along who decides to be above this particular silliness and will mourn when he only gets one term in office.

Originally Posted by "Congressional Testimony Transcript

Feingold: Let me switch to a subject that has come up a lot here
today. In the August 2002 memorandum, the Justice Department
concludes that the President, as Commander in Chief, may
authorize interrogations that violate the criminal laws
prohibiting torture and that the Congress may not
constitutionally outlaw such activity when it is authorized by
the President. This is the claim, essentially, that the
President is above the law so long as he is acting in the
interest of national security.

A December 30 rewrite of the August memorandum does not
repudiate this view. It simply says the issue is irrelevant
because the President has prohibited torture.

Today, in response to questions on this subject, you have
been unwilling to repudiate this legal theory. You have danced
around the question a bit. But as I understand your answers so
far, you have said there may be a situation where the President
would believe a statute is unconstitutional and would therefore
refuse to comply with it, but would abide by a court's decision
on its constitutionality. You, also, I am told, said that many
Presidents have asserted the power not to enforce a statute
that they believe is unconstitutional. But there is a
difference between a President deciding not to enforce a
statute which he thinks is unconstitutional and a President
claiming to authorize individuals to break the law by torturing
individuals or taking other illegal actions.

So what I want to do is press you on that because I think
perhaps you have misunderstood the question, and it is an
important one. It goes to a very basic principle of the country
that no one, not even the President of the United States, is
above the law. Of course, the President is entitled to assert
that an Act of Congress is unconstitutional.

This President did so, for example, with respect to some
portions of our McCain-Feingold bill when he signed it, but his
Justice Department defended the law in court, as it is bound to
do with every law duly enacted by the Congress. And his
campaign and his party complied with the law while a court
challenge was pending. No one asserted that the President had
the power to ignore a law that he thought was unconstitutional.

The question here is what is your view regarding the
President's constitutional authority to authorize violations of
the criminal law, duly enacted statutes that may have been on
the books for many years when acting as Commander in Chief?
Does he have such authority? The question you have been asked
is not about a hypothetical statute in the future that the
President might think is unconstitutional. It is about our laws
in international treaty obligations concerning torture. The
torture memo answered that question in the affirmative, and my
colleagues and I would like your answer on that today.

I, also, would like you to answer this: does the President,
in your opinion, have the authority, acting as Commander in
Chief, to authorize warrantless searches of Americans' homes
and wiretaps of their conversations in violation of the
criminal and foreign intelligence surveillance statutes of this
country?

Judge Gonzales: Senator, the August 30th memo has been
withdrawn. It has been rejected, including that section
regarding the Commander in Chief's authority to ignore the
criminal statutes. So it has been rejected by the executive
branch. I, categorically, reject it. And, in addition to that,
as I have said repeatedly today, this administration does not
engage in torture and will not condone torture. And so what we
are really discussing is a hypothetical situation that--

Senator Feingold: Judge Gonzales, I have asked a broader
question. I am asking whether, in general, the President has
the constitutional authority, at least in theory, to authorize
violations of criminal law when there are duly enacted statutes
simply because he is Commander in Chief? Does he have that
power?

Judge Gonzales: Senator, in my judgment, you have phrased
sort of a hypothetical situation. I would have to know what is
the national interest that the President may have to consider.
What I am saying is it is impossible to me, based upon the
questions you have presented to me, to answer that question. I
can say that there is a presumption of constitutionality with
respect to any statute passed by Congress. I will take an oath
to defend the statutes. And to the extent that there is a
decision made to ignore a statute, I consider that a very
significant decision and one that I would personally be
involved with, I commit to you on that, and one I will take
with a great deal of care and seriousness.

Senator Feingold: Well, that sounds to me like the
President still remains above the law.

Judge Gonzales: No, sir.

Senator Feingold: If this is something where you take a
good look at it, you give a presumption that the President
ought to follow the law, you know, to me that is not good
enough under our system of Government.

Judge Gonzales: Senator, if I might respond to that, the
President is not above the law. Of course, he is not above the
law. But he has an obligation, too. He takes an oath as well.
And if Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, there is
a practice and a tradition recognized by Presidents of both
parties that he may elect to decide not to enforce that law.
Now, I think that that would be--

Senator Feingold: I recognize that and I tried to make that
distinction, Judge, between electing not to enforce as opposed
to affirmatively telling people they can do certain things in
contravention of the law.

Judge Gonzales: Senator, this President is not--it's not
the policy or the agenda of this President to authorize actions
that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

We all know damn good and well that were the shoe on the other political foot the Repub's would be screaming bloody murder, Scaeagles.

Well, no, actually I wouldn't. I could just as easily say that feminist groups would have had a hissy if it was a Republican president having an affair with an intern.

It's like Bosnia. It's like bombings on Iraq or the Sudan (the aspirin factory that was supposedly manuafacturing chemical weapons). I am not automatically supportive of republican positions and dismissive of democrat positions. Please note the earlier message regarding Bush and the border.