Watchdog group asks Texas bar to investigate Gonzales's lying to congess

[Ladewig]

CREW

Quote:

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a complaint with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas requesting an investigation into misrepresentations White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales made in a written response to a question posed to him by the Senate Judiciary Committee which is considering Gonzales’s nomination for Attorney General.

The complaint alleges that Gonzales inaccurately portrayed his role in appearing before a Texas court when President Bush, then Governor of Texas, was summoned for jury duty. Gonzales has claimed that although he appeared in court with the Governor, he merely observed the defense counsel make a motion to strike the Governor from the jury panel and then when asked by the Judge whether the Governor had any views on this, replied that he did not.

In marked contrast, Michael Isikoff, reporting for Newseek, has written that the defense lawyer, prosecutor and judge involved in the case all recall the incident differently. In their version, Gonzales asked to have an off-the-record conference in the judge’s chambers where Gonzales then asked the judge, David Crain, to strike Mr. Bush from the jury, arguing that the Governor might one day be asked to pardon the defendant. Isikoff writes that Judge Crain found Gonzales’s argument “extremely unlikely” but out of deference, agreed to allow the motion to strike, which the defense lawyer then made.

CREW’s complaint alleges that by misstating the facts surrounding the conversation in the judge’s chambers Gonzales may have violated 18 U.S.C. §1001, which makes it a federal crime to make false statements to a congressional committee. The complaint further alleges that Mr. Gonzales has violated two Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure: 8.04(a)(2) which prohibits lawyers from committing crimes that reflect adversely on their honesty or trustworthiness; and 8.04(a)(3) which prohibits lawyers from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

CREW’s Executive Director Melanie Sloan stated, “The marked contrast between the version of events Mr. Gonzales provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the version told by the three other individuals involved – the prosecutor, the defense lawyer and the judge – is enough to require the State Bar of Texas to investigate this matter.” Sloan continued, “Violations of the bar rules can lead to disbarment. The Senate should delay voting on Mr. Gonzales’s nomination until this matter is cleared up or face the prospect of having an Attorney General who has lost his bar license.”

The case Bush was called for was a woman accused of drunk driving. Fate sure has a twisted sense of humor.

[WildCat]

Funny how CREW only files complaints against opponents of Kerry for president. Not exactly an impartial group now, is it? And that's the best they could come up w/ after all the Gonzales testimony? Pretty weak.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Personally, whenever I come across a group whose name begins with "Citizens For", I generally tend to ignore them. Experience tells me they are whiners.

[Ladewig]

Quote:

Originally posted by WildCat
Funny how CREW only files complaints against opponents of Kerry for president. Not exactly an impartial group now, is it? And that's the best they could come up w/ after all the Gonzales testimony? Pretty weak.

Well, if he did lie during an acceptance hearing, then I don't consider it weak; I consider it a crime. Whether or not they are impartial (or whiners) is irrelevant as to whether or not the accusation is true.

[crimresearch]

The accusation against Gonzales, making false statements to Congress, is a felony.
And having evidence of such an offense, and not reporting it to federal law enforcement would be misprision of a felony, itself a serious charge.

One does wonder why these individuals didn't just go ahead and do their duty as officers of the court...unless of course the penalty for lying to federal investigators in a criminal investigation is a little more severe than the consequences of filing a complaint with the bar back home in good ole Tejas.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Quote:

Originally posted by crimresearch
The accusation against Gonzales, making false statements to Congress, is a felony.
And having evidence of such an offense, and not reporting it to federal law enforcement would be misprision of a felony, itself a serious charge.

One does wonder why these individuals didn't just go ahead and do their duty as officers of the court...unless of course the penalty for lying to federal investigators in a criminal investigation is a little more severe than the consequences of filing a complaint with the bar back home in good ole Tejas.

Bingo. It's the same question I asked of the loonies and their Ohio voting fraud conspiracy. If they knew that election fraud had occured, why did none of them ever call the FBI? Perhaps they didn't want to be laughed at.

Same thing for the JFK conspiracy. Ask any idiot like Rouser2 why, if they know who killed JFK, none of them ever called the police? Oh that's right - the police were part of the conspiracy.

[WildCat]

Quote:

Originally posted by crimresearch
The accusation against Gonzales, making false statements to Congress, is a felony.
And having evidence of such an offense, and not reporting it to federal law enforcement would be misprision of a felony, itself a serious charge.

One does wonder why these individuals didn't just go ahead and do their duty as officers of the court...unless of course the penalty for lying to federal investigators in a criminal investigation is a little more severe than the consequences of filing a complaint with the bar back home in good ole Tejas.

Yes, it is very serious. I hear he also stated that that morning he had 2 eggs, 2 strips of bacon and a glass of orange juice for breakfast while his waitress clearly remembers he had 3 eggs and only one strip of bacon. IMPRISON HIM!!!

Tme for Sen. Kennedy to get tough, that's what Mary Jo would want him to do, I'm sure, if she were still alive.

[pgwenthold]

The GOP is just reaping what it sows. Recall that they wasted months of governing on impeachment hearings over the exact same type of nonsense.

[DavidJames]

Personally, while technically he may have "lied", I don't see this as a huge deal. Now if in the Judge's chambers he had offered money or something else that would be different.

I have noted, however, the faithful apologists not even recognizing the lie.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Personally, whenever I come across a group whose name begins with "Citizens For", I generally tend to ignore them. Experience tells me they are whiners.

Not much for the rights of citizens, then, are you?

[crimresearch]

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidJames
Personally, while technically he may have "lied", I don't see this as a huge deal. Now if in the Judge's chambers he had offered money or something else that would be different.

I have noted, however, the faithful apologists not even recognizing the lie.

Really?? You've 'noted' that? Well then you should have no problem backing up that assertion with a direct link to the post in which someone says that it wasn't a lie.

Unless of course, you are just fabricating strawman arguments, and putting words in other poster's mouths...in which case you can't back up assertions with facts.

Oh wait a minute...silly me, what *was* I thinking?


Never mind.

[WildCat]

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidJames
Personally, while technically he may have "lied", I don't see this as a huge deal. Now if in the Judge's chambers he had offered money or something else that would be different.

I have noted, however, the faithful apologists not even recognizing the lie.

How do you know it was a lie? Have you seen a transcript of the question, and Gonzales' answer? Is there also a contemporary record of the the jury duty in question? All we have to go on is the word of a front organization for the Dems that has unsuccessfully filed complaint after complaint against opponents of Dem candidates. If that group told me it was raining outside, I would look out the window to be sure.

[Bjorn]

Quote:

Originally posted by WildCat
How do you know it was a lie? Have you seen a transcript of the question, and Gonzales' answer?

I haven't heard or read anyone/anywhere today stating that Gonzales' version is the correct one - not even himself. Do you have any sources?

I wouldn't blame people for having a bad memory at times, but if he lied because he didn't want to admit that he protected the then governor, it's still a lie.

Quote:

.... it was later revealed that Gonzales' action spared Bush from revealing a 1976 drunken driving arrest.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/san...s/10741537.htm

[WildCat]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bjorn
I haven't heard or read anyone/anywhere today stating that Gonzales' version is the correct one - not even himself. Do you have any sources?

I wouldn't blame people for having a bad memory at times, but if he lied because he didn't want to admit that he protected the then governor, it's still a lie.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/san...s/10741537.htm

So, if I understand this all correctly, Gonzales got Bush out of jury duty before he could be questioned about his driving record, which he might have been forced to reveal if the attorneys involved in the drunk driving case had questioned him. So far, so good.

But what was the question put to him by the Senate Judiciary Committe, the answer to which Gonzales allegedly lied about?

[DavidJames]

Sorry, did you say something Crim...I was distracted still trying to find the quotes from people you claimed were defaming Bob Dole's war record, not to mention your accusations of racism.

You are correct, however, nobody has used the words "it wasn't a lie", I will restate my comment.

I have noted, however, the faithful apologists attempts at redirection

Quote:

Funny how CREW only files complaints against opponents of Kerry for president. Not exactly an impartial group now, is it?

Personally, whenever I come across a group whose name begins with "Citizens For", I generally tend to ignore them. Experience tells me they are whiners.

unless of course the penalty for lying to federal investigators in a criminal investigation is a little more severe than the consequences of filing a complaint with the bar back home in good ole Tejas.

Yes, it is very serious. I hear he also stated that that morning he had 2 eggs, 2 strips of bacon and a glass of orange juice for breakfast while his waitress clearly remembers he had 3 eggs and only one strip of bacon. IMPRISON HIM!!!

Tme for Sen. Kennedy to get tough, that's what Mary Jo would want him to do, I'm sure, if she were still alive.

[Bjorn]

Quote:

Originally posted by WildCat
So, if I understand this all correctly, Gonzales got Bush out of jury duty before he could be questioned about his driving record, which he might have been forced to reveal if the attorneys involved in the drunk driving case had questioned him. So far, so good.

We agree. But did Mr. Gonzales tell the truth about it a few days ago?

Quote:

But what was the question put to him by the Senate Judiciary Committe, the answer to which Gonzales allegedly lied about?

He was asked by Leahy to "describe in detail the only court appearance he ever made on behalf of Bush".

Quote:

Gonzales wrote he "observed" the defense lawyer make a motion to strike Bush from the jury panel "to which the prosecutor did not object." Asked by the judge whether he had "any views on this," Gonzales recalled, he said he did not.

..............

While Gonzales's account tracks with the official court transcript, it leaves out a key part of what happened that day, according to Travis County Judge David Crain. In separate interviews, Crain—along with Wahlberg and prosecutor John Lastovica—told NEWSWEEK that, before the case began, Gonzales asked to have an off-the-record conference in the judge's chambers. Gonzales then asked Crain to "consider" striking Bush from the jury, making the novel "conflict of interest" argument that the Texas governor might one day be asked to pardon the defendant (who worked at an Austin nightclub called Sugar's), the judge said. "He [Gonzales] raised the issue," Crain said.

..............

Gonzales last week refused to waver. "Judge Gonzales has no recollection of requesting a meeting in chambers," a senior White House official said, adding that while Gonzales did recall that Bush's potential conflict was "discussed," he never "requested" that Bush be excused. "His answer to the Senate's question is accurate," the official said.

The whole truth and nothing but the truth?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6857224/site/newsweek/

[crimresearch]

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidJames
Sorry, did you say something Crim...I was distracted still trying to find the quotes from people you claimed were defaming Bob Dole's war record, not to mention your accusations of racism.

You are correct, however, nobody has used the words "it wasn't a lie", I will restate my comment.

I have noted, however, the faithful apologists attempts at redirection

So you have no more proof to support your last false allegation, than you have been able to provide in support of your previous ones.

Or your next one.

Just wanted to get your habitual behavior out in the open.

Again.

Some more.

In case anyone missed it the first dozen or so times.