* Alberto Gonzales did not attempt to mislead Congress in 2007 when he testified that the controversy that erupted at the Justice Department in 2004 was not over what was popularly known as the "terrorist surveillance program" (i.e., the NSA's warrantless surveillance program to intercept suspected terrorist communications that crossed U.S. borders — the effort the Left smeared as "domestic spying"). In fact, as Gonzales told the Senate judiciary Committee, the controversy was about other intelligence activities.
* When congressional Democrats rolled their eyes, suggested that Gonzales was lying, and groused that a special prosecutor should be appointed, they well knew he wasn't lying — but they also knew he couldn't discuss the intellligence activities at the center of the controversy because those activities were (and remain) highly classified. That is, they knowingly badgered the Attorney General of the United States at a hearing in a calculated effort to make him look dishonest and to intimate something they knew to be untrue: namely, that the dispute at DOJ arose because senior officials believed warrantless surveillance was illegal.
There's more from Andy McCarthy at the link, including information about the false Democrat/media presentation of Mr. Gonzales' famous visit to AG John Ashcroft's bedside. To summarize, congressional Democrats smeared the Attorney General of the United States as a liar, suggesting that he be prosecuted for perjury, when they knew full well that he was telling the truth, simply because they also knew that he couldn't defend himself against the charges, as the information that would do so was classified.
That is, given the choice between accepting truth that Mr. Gonzales gave them or beating up a handcuffed man by lying about him for political gain they chose the latter. Harming national security? Hey, sometimes you gotta break a few eggs to make an Obamalet, right?
Sunstein calls for a "notice and take down" law that would require bloggers and service providers to "take down falsehoods upon notice," even those made by commenters - but without apparent penalty.
Consider how well this nudge would work. You blog about Obama-Ayers. You get a letter claiming that your facts are wrong so you should remove your post. You refuse. If, after a court proceeding proves simply that you are wrong (but not that you committed libel, which when a public figure is the target is almost impossible), you lose, the penalty is . . . you must take down your post.
How long would it take for a court to sort out the truth? Sasha and Malia will be running for president by then. Nobody will care anymore. But it will give politicians the ability to tie up their online critics in court.
Guess which side of the political spectrum would use such a law most aggressively? One might suggest that a far more necessary use for such supervision would be to address the falsehoods and smears coming from the mouths of our illustrious congressfolk.