Reply With Quote
Agree. But there was no conspiracy when Alberto lied to Congress.
Contempt of Congress Citation?
A typically soft-spoken Republican calling for his resignation?
Romney camp making it a campaign issue?
After more than a year of ignoring it, ABC News finally runs a 2 minute story on the scandal.
Not exactly a hard-hitting piece but, this isn't going away. I predict Holder joins the masses under Obama's bus.
Agree. But there was no conspiracy when Alberto lied to Congress.
cool youtubes. didn't watch.
Didn't expect you to.
Do you think my name for him, ShazBot, fits him?
Boutons can be so out there at times that he is freaking hilarious.
Do you remember the le of that thread? I wish to review it.Agree. But there was no conspiracy when Alberto lied to Congress.
Links of the allegations. I forget if any was found true or not. I guess you don't know the link where we discussed it those years back.
Have any facts rather than allegations? Testimony under oath?
My understanding is there was no evidence he lied. Just the allegations.
sober?
Cobra "understands" what he wants to understand... very Yoni like...
For the life of me, I can't remember any compelling evidence. Just allegations. Care to present it?
Are you sober? Or you're just too stupid to read?
As he sought to renew the USA Patriot Act two years ago, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured lawmakers that the FBI had not abused its potent new terrorism-fighting powers. "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse," Gonzales told senators on April 27, 2005.
Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not en led to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI do ents released under the Freedom of Information Act.
lol don't remember
lol perennially drunk
"There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse,"
This could have been an accurate statement.
Can you show he intentionally lied?
Do you know what "verified" means?
What verified case are you taking about, that proves he lied?
Are allegations good enough for you to convict?
LOL....
Playing the drunk card when you don't have a good hand.
Nice...
Shows you know you cannot win this argument.
So you're saying the FBI lied?
Prove it.
I never claimed to be drunk after saying something stupid
LOL...
Don't you see...
Neither of us can prove that either lied.
I can prove the FBI sent Gonzales half a dozen reports on violations before his testimony to Congress.
Can you prove those reports were false? Link to the reports, please.
Can you prove that Gonzolas' office verified the reports were accurate, then lied saying they weren't verified?
Did Gonzales ever told Congress he received the reports? Link?
I don't know. Did he? My understand it his chosen words was that there were no verified abuses.Did Gonzales ever told Congress he received the reports? Link?
Were those reports verified as being accurate or not?
Look here.
We can play this game all day long. It's a simple yes or no question. Do you know for a fact that he knew those reports had been verified before he testified? It seems to me that is the critical question.
You sure seem to have an opinion about it....
When are you going to start making excuses for Holder?
I see. Don't answer the important question. There is still time to see if there is solid evidence against Holder or not.You sure seem to have an opinion about it....
When are you going to start making excuses for Holder?
Do you know my opinion on Gonzalas' innocence or guilt? I have only pointed out the facts as I know them. Where did I offer my opinion on if he got away with a crime or not? I don't remember saying anything on those lines.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
