Care to revise your statement? Want to change your bullshit story?

Wonder if anyone on Fox will claim that it's not the phone hacking, it's the cover-up that matters.

In Mr. Goodman’s letter, dated March 2, 2007, Mr. Goodman challenged his dismissal, saying that his actions “were carried out with the full knowledge and support” of other senior journalists. He also said another senior journalist arranged for payments to a private investigator who carried out the hacking.

Mr. Goodman also asserted in his letter that the practice of phone hacking was “widely discussed in the daily editorial conference” at the newspaper until “explicit reference to it was banned by the editor.”

Mr. Watson said the committee had seen two versions of the letter, one more heavily redacted than the other. One version sent to the committee by News International, the British newspaper subsidiary of the Murdoch family’s News Corporation, had been redacted to black out references to “editorial conference” and “the editor.”

The News of the World had long insisted that the phone hacking was restricted to Mr. Goodman, a single rogue reporter.

Look, News Corp. and all its properties lie early and often. I wonder just how Clintonesque they'll become in their denials that they've perjured themselves before Parliament.

“We have written to Andy Coulson to ask him whether he would like to amend his previous evidence,” Mr. Watson said. “Clearly if Clive Goodman’s account is accurate, it shows the evidence he gave us was at best misleading and probably deceptive.”

What's really odd: no investigative follow-through on this side of the Atlantic.

More patriotic than Newt

Newt Gingrich (R-cheating for the flag) did two wives wrong because of his overwhelming boner for America.  He was working hard and long cheek to cheek with other (younger) women, and he needed sex relief.  Right there in the Speaker's office.  If Bill Clinton could get some in the Oval Office...

John Ensign (R-much better looking than Harry Reid) had to go him one better and have an affair with a close friend's wife.  That personal sacrifice shows just how much Ensign loves America.  He was willing to wreck four lives at once and maybe get his own mother indicted for perjury for her involvement in paying hush money.

Top that, Gingrich!  Isn't it about time you found someone to cheat with on Callista?  She has to be expecting it.

What sweet young wingnut sycophant will be the next last refuge of a scoundrel?

Not even a surprise anymore

Bushists lie when they testify. No one screams about perjury and the importance of the rule of law.

Truth and nothing but

The question for Roland Burris is whether he told the whole truth, and it certainly appears that he conveniently did not.

Our legal processes routinely swear witnesses to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and then they decline those witnesses any opportunity to tell the whole truth. I don't think this was one of those times when a presiding officer had to confine a witness to address the question asked.

Nonetheless, perjury here is just a Republican wet dream - anything to keep Blagojevich in the headlines, they're interested in.

One mo' 'gin

"No recollection," when uttered by a Bushist of any stripe, means "if I told you I wasn't involved, that would be perjury."

Compare and contrast

Bill Clinton certainly lied to the American people when he wagged his finger at the camera and said, "I did not have sex...ual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

When he testified in the Paula Jones lawsuit (in response to salacious tidbits that Ken Starr's team was feeding her lawyers), Clinton was responding to a specific definition of sexual relations that excluded oral sex. Yes, this is hairsplitting.

What Gonzo is supposedly doing is reserving to himself the right to redefine program in whatever way he chooses. He also refuses to clarify anything about the illegal surveillance done by the Bushists so that anyone in Congress doing Constitutional oversight could actually pin him down on such a simple fact as how many programs Gonzales wants to divide the surveillance program into.

The answer, of course, is just as many as he needs to claim after the fact that he didn't lie. His definition of lie is exceedingly narrow. He is only trying to leave himself enough wiggle room that there's some set of facts he can stretch his former answers to fit.

The key here is that lying includes those times when you tell "the truth" in a way intended to deceive. At best, that's what the Attorney General has done before Congress. I'm not for summary execution, but this man needs to do time.

Why should we believe the implication that the Bushists directed the NSA to do data-mining only on phone records? Really, that's basically a few SQL queries, hardly something that would qualify for the label data-mining. We will find in time that the Bushists had the NSA data-mining recorded domestic conversations by computer. They will claim, against all precedent and common sense, that this is not eavesdropping, since no human would ever listen to the innocent calls, only a machine. (Yes, I am asserting this with no evidence, only the thoroughly deceitful precedents of the Bushist apparatus.)

One last point: Clinton was lying about private sex. Gonzo is lying about ignoring the Constitution. What will we tell the children?

How do you know Rove is lying?

Yes, of course, as in the old joke, his lips are moving.

When his memory is hazy, that means he's worrying about perjury.

Originally a comment on DailyKos.