My favorite Gonzales quote thus far comes from his opening statement: "Finally, recognizing my limited involvement in the process, a mistake that I freely acknowledge, I have soberly questioned by prior decisions. I have reviewed the documents available to the Congress." Because, you know, you wouldn't want to review ALL possible documents available, otherwise you might let something slip out that Congress hasn't yet been told. Such as that teensy little whole confidential internal memo delegating hiring and firing responsibilities for career DoJ employees to your young and inexperienced political minions with strong ties to Karl Rove and the WH political shop. Nope, nothing to see here, why do you ask?
So, in light of that, and the fact that I am about to blow a gasket because the questions are so tangential, unfocused and rambling this morning, I'm asking you: what SHOULD the members of Congress be asking? And, even more importantly, why haven't they begun allowing the Judiciary Committee counsel to ask more thorough questions than the members are doing?
Jeebus, I have a headache this morning. How are you guys doing?
PS — If the Committee has evidence that phone calls were made to pressure former USAs and AUSAs from cooperating with the Committee, I suggest a referral be filed for obstruction charges against those persons doing the pressuring. Because that sounds to me an awful lot like an attempt to obstruct the committee's investigation.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Christy!
Questions? What did Karl Rove know; and when did he know it?
Amazing how he can sound so dumb while he is being so sly.
usually the “one that got away” was never on the hook. christ.
Who exactly are the top justice officials who were involved in making the list of USA to be fired? What are their names and positions?
Get Rove.
The question I’d like to ask?
“Are you aware, Mr. Attorney General, that it is a crime to lie to Congress?”
Then start reading out the provably false statements he’s said so far.
That would make me very happy.
When will someone pose the question to AGAG about the confidential memo ceding all hiring and firing authority to political hacks like Sampson and Goodling?? So far, I’m not at all impressed. Is this committee serious about getting answers or not???
They need to hammer everything they have about Goodling and Sampson – Everything.
Ask about the authorization.
Ask about the possibly stamped signatures.
Ask why Cort’s memo was signed by Allen.
Ask about RNC email accounts.
Ask him if he has or had one.
They will not be able to corner him by asking him about the investigations of the USAs in this kind of hearing. It is a waste of time.
“Mr. Gonzales, were you aware of the Federalist Society membership column that was added by Sampson and Goodling to the worksheet used to vet DOJ employees?”
Subtle shift between ‘No’ and ‘I would not…’. Response should be ‘But DID you??’
I am frustrated beyond belief by what the Democrats are doing. How is what they’re doing related to oversight? I thought I’d be sick watching it because of Abu’s non-responsiveness.
I don’t have a question to be asked. Just a suggestion to reiterate that myself and others have made:
Get a real prosecutor in there and let him go.
My sympathies Christy.
I have a headache too.
I am experiencing multiple ‘puter problems this morning and can’t follow this like I want.
I have caught enough to be disgusted though.
Texas toast is great. Deputy Chief of Staff toast, with lots of Bush batter is better. Much better.
Ask him about the WH meetings. Was he there with Sampson and Goodling. Was Karl Rove there. Was Harriet Miers there.
Lots of piss-poor lawyering being shown in the Judiciary Committee today.
It seems as though Gonzalez is at his most uncomfortable point when being questioned about Sampson, Goodling and Meiers. I say we keep hammering away until he pops a vein.
When the military commisions act was passed, weren’t we assured this was only for enemy combatants? PBS Frontline did a piece When Teens Get Life. In Co. teens are denied counsel and the right to review testimony. Can’t interview the teens or film inside or outside the facility. Sounds like Gitmo to me right here.
Which specific senior dept members had input on the list, so we can subpoena their asses, and figure out just who the hell you’re hiding so hard.
And we’d like to introduce you to this nice young man with the handcuffs…
WHO MADE THE LIST?!?
I am disgusted.
I am disgusted that NPR will not cover the hearing and that C-Span buries it on channel three. I’m frustrated that the committee hearing stream is a real media stream and I won’t have real media crap on my pc.
But I’m most disgusted by the dems who seem, from what I read here, to have not really shown up at all.
I’m glad they’re re-running the beginning of the hearing because I missed it earlier. That opening statment is a masterpiece of a non-apology apology. Any idea how much longer the recess lasts? And why wasn’t Gonzo sworn in?
To repeat myself, here’s a question:
conyers NEEDS to follow-up,
from the opening Q & A:
“WHAT EXACTLY are you aware of about
what karl rove said in those three conversations?”
“WHY ON EARTH would we believe that the
decision to hire Iglesias was not motivated
by these karl rove screechs?”
Well, since he’s clearly the empty suit, knows nothing and sees nothing, ask:
Who knows more about this?
How many emails have not been tendered to Congress?
Who is “vetting” the email drops that Congress is getting? (who is behind gthe coverup.)
Who has he talked to to get to the bottom of what happened?
If he won’t say who did it, who did he ask who did it? Or did he even ask: who came up with these names?
Doesn’t he want to know where the genesis of this came from?
Ask about Brown, the fired Guam Attorney. The timing of that one stinks.
Why was the Guam US attorney forced out the day after he issued subpoenas for Abrahmof?
greenwarrior @ 12:
“I am frustrated beyond belief by what the Democrats are doing.”
You are not alone. This is pathetic.
“Who’s idea was it to give Goodling/Sampson authority?” “Who drew-up the memo?”
– Who suggested the delegation of authority?
– What was the reason for the delegation?
– Why was the delegation of authority made to Sampson and Goodling and not to the DAG?
– Why does it appear that the DAG was not in the loop on the delegation?
– Who now possesses the delegation in the absence of Sampson and Goodling?
– Why is this end-run around Congressional authority for oversight and Advise-Consent still in place, without any communication to Congress that the delegation is needed, remains needed and that persons X and Y now have your authority that Congress authorized by its approval of your nomination as AG?
For starters.
Was the list created in the meetings in the WH????
Ask him about his we work for the WH speech!!!!!
Do I still have to stay on topic? I can’t afford to lose any more recesses.
Solai @ 26
and who signed it?
Don’t blame C-SPAN: they are obliged to put the House and Senate on 1/2 from gavel to gavel.
Ego. Face time. Personal agendas.
spurious @ 11
Every single time any repub uses a conditional in a sentence it should be a red flag that there is something hiding behind that.
Mr AG…did you say: “I work for the White House. You work for the White House”?
sanchez did a good job.
Did the Committee prepare for this hearing at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
Ask him to describe exactly how this so-called consensus was arrived at, given the fact that virtually all of the senior DOJ officials have testified that they did not add names to the list.
So who did add the names to the list?
And how was this consensus reached? Did all these senior DOJ officials sit down and have some meetings, and if so, when are where are the notes? And if they did it via memo, where are the damn memos?
Push hard on this?
And if he keeps saying he doesn’t have a fricken clue, ask him who was *really* in charge, because in all honesty Mr AG, someone had to be in charge, right–so tell us, who was????
Redd, here’s the CRS report on US Attorneys who left during their 1st 4 years (1981-2006). CRS Report on USAs 1981-2006
Ed*ard Teller @ 22
No idea why he wasn’t sworn. When they went for the break CSpan said it would be about an hour.
I’m still troubled by the ’serve at the pleasure..’ answers. It just seems that Gonz is clueless that there’s a difference between being AG/USA and Bush’s or WH council. Am I off on this?
He goes to the ‘process’ for his defense..ie it wasn’t my decision…
Then refers to ‘my decision.’
Again, the answers to Conyers’ openning statement need to get on record. As of now, there’s nothing.
—-
Sanchez does use the word ‘target’ …GOnzo does’t dispute the word on his response, fwiw.
How about throwing out all those Repubs who keep protesting and changing the subject!!!! Make them stay on topic or ask THEM to leave.
noen at 21 — C-Span is required, by agreement with Congress to get access to broadcasting all of this, to primarily use C-Span 1 and 2 for floor activity in both houses of Congress. The reason it is on 3 this morning is because there are floor votes and activity/speeches going on in both houses of Congress. It’s better that they start on C-Span3 because we can watch seemlessly rather than having to switch channels back and forth. There is no burying it — they are followjng their contractual obligation in the deal they made with Congress.
This is true for them at all times — any time any business is conducted on the House floor, it must be covered on C-Span1. Same with the Senate on C-Span2.
jayt @ 16
Unfortunately, the HJC hearings with Abu have been the perfect example of why attorneys are best suited to the Judiciary Committee as well as other Committees’ seats in Congress. But poor lawyering hurts.
Yeah!!! Why the hell wasn’t he sworn in. That is outrageous!!!
How about “What kind of fuckery is this?” Not very specific, but at least it’s a start.
greenwarrior @ 12
I agree, the Dems are all over the place, when they should be backing eachothers questions up and pinning him down. One issue that’s bothering me is the limited amount of time each questioner has. This ia a pretty crappy forum in which to elicit actual, complete answers. I’m still waiting for someone to pin him on why he hasn’t bothered to find out the answers to the question he was asked last time.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 43
Wish CSpan3 was on all cable & satellite systems then.
Ask:
Other than your empty assurances, what EVIDENCE or facts can you muster that demonstrates these firings were NOT politically motivated?
Carol Lam: what facts can you objectively point to that demonstrate she was fired for doing a bad job instead of being fired for going after Republicans?
Can you explain the 300 to 40 disparity between prosecution of republicans and democrats? accy to academic studies.
I’d heard this study mentioned before, but now here’s the link, courtesy of Brian Beutler. It shows that “the offices of the U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven (7) times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops.”
http://matthewyglesias.theatla….._study.php
and the study: http://www.epluribusmedia.org/…..iling.html
Mr AG who drew up the list?
Abu: Consensus of people who knew the USA performance better than me.
And their names are?
Abu: Was a consensus of respected, high level people
Employees of the DOJ?
Abu: Yes
Do they receive a paycheck from DOJ?
Abu: yes
In the “pay to the order of” part of the check, what does it say?
Sounds like the Repubs are trying to stall the voting stuff in the House…figures.
Kangaroo Congress.
Mr. Gonzales: Do you have any idea of the amount of perfectly good popcorn that you’ve caused to be wasted this morning?
I just cannot stand it…. Could not walk fast enough while listening …. Had to restrain myself from throwing my XM radio. Lordy what a bunch of Repug AssHats….
At this point a summary speech-question would be effective. (The question part would amount to, “So, Gonzales, what do you have to say about this?”)
1. Summarize process changes just discussed on Balkin: first taking the professionals out of the loop in favor of the AG, and then taking the AG out of the loop in favor of a Justice underling and a White House rep.
2. Summarize the fact that no one in justice is willing to say they compiled the list, and that Goodling (who may know the answer) is taking the Fifth.
3. Mention some of the evidence coming out in the newspapers: e.g. Gonzales’ “We all work for the White House” speech, various statements by the fired attorneys, the involvement of Domenici, Seattle Republicans, Karl Rove’s presence at a Justice meeting, etc.
4. Mention a.) corruption investigations aimed at Republicans and b.) voter suppression activities.
5. Sum up: “Why should we not conclude that the decisions were actually made by Karl Rove in the White House, or one of his deputies, with the goal of using justice as a political tool to help the Republican party?”
This could be done very briskly and vigorously, moving quickly from one point to the next while just touching on details. It might take 2-3 minutes.
ET — No idea why he wasn’t sworn in — was wondering that myself.
pseudonymous in nc @ 31
But they play games. The last time gonzo was on cspan they started off on channel two and the moment it started c-2 switched to some other burning issue like presidential nose hairs or something, while the coverage continued on c-3. It is a deliberate attempt to distract people and bury the hearing as much as possible.
LS @ 45
The same rules apply, whether you are sworn in or not, IIRC.
The ineptitude just makes me more suspicious. Surely the committee monitored the Waxman-led hearings. Surely they understand what’s needed and have the resources to conduct a really tight, thorough hearing, even if they can’t actually map it out themselves?
This is beyond disappointing; it’s failure.
I can barely watch this and agree completely about the headache Christy. I have a question about the HJC’s functioning.
It seems as if there is no master plan for the majority staff’s strategy. It’s almost as if they are like a prosecution team in a courtroom that has not met before the trial to review evidence, possible questions and followup. They are letting the members waste time!
This seems like a lack of focus “train wreck”…the kind of “Dim Dem” history that has played into Rove’s hands. Maybe I’m being too harsh but have the previous years in the minority caused the quality of Committee staffs to suffer?
Why can’t they say irt the purge list:
“you were informed that this would be asked and it was your responsibility to ask questions within the DOJ and provide an answer to this committee. What steps did you take to find the answer to this question?”
IANAL but why can’t they say that?
My question:
“Do you hereby appoint Patrick Fitzgerald this very day as a Special Prosecutor to investigate all individuals in the White House, the DOJ and any other organization (i.e. the RNC, the Federalist Society, the Repug party, etc.) who may have been involved with the firings of, the selection of, and the replacement of any of the US Attorneys, and that Patrick Fitzgerald will again have Plenary Powers to pursue all acts of criminality found, so help you God?”
Sign right here on the dotted line, Abu!
Can you do a drug test on presidential nose hairs?
“Sir, are you on drugs?” followed by an immediate urine test.
I’m not kidding. Us workers face it for less, and his memory could well be chemically impaired.
what specifically was the process used in firing the usattys? each one.
When did you last communicate, either verbally or electronically, to Rover or Bolten? Did you tell any untruths to this committee in your testimony this morning?
Unfortunately, this hearing is giving FauxNews and Wolfie at CNN fodder that says “nothing to see, folks, move along”. For the average person who only watches MSM, they’ll believe it. AARRRGGGHHH!!!
LS @ 46
Excuse me?? Gonzoles wasn’t sworn in?? Really??
conniptionfit @ 19
Yes, darnit. We want names. Names of all the “consensus” the “senior officials.”
Rayne @ 43
I’m extremely disappointed with Conyers. The D’s seem to have NO coherent strategy, and precious little preparation.
Nadler’s question re: Gonzales’ competence in the areas he & the Repubs are trotting out as diversion- terrorism, chld porn, etc.
? needs an actual answer. How can the American People he keeps referring to believe in Alberto’s competence in other matters @ DoJ when he delegated & now professes ignorance in very important issue of USA firings. Specifics of management style & skill set he uses as AG. Specifics.
I don’t want Nadler’s ? to be rhetorical…
So… is the consensus my party gets an ‘F’ for this morning’s performance? Did my party, party a little too much last night on the weenie circuit perhaps?
conniptionfit @ 64
Not sworn.
Questions they need to ask:
Texas Betsy @ 49
If Murdoch has his way with us, CSpan will be very hard to find anywhere…
Abu has said senior officials contributed their opinions to the firings list. What precisely were those opinions? Who gave them? Who were the senior officials? And if Abu can’t remember, why not? If someone discusses a list of names it is natural to say so and so said this and someone else added that. Abu seems to maintain that he has no idea about any of this. It just isn’t credible but if true shows he is too incompetent to be AG.
What does Abu know about the connection to the White House, either personally or in discussions with Sampson and Goodling? What was the role of Karl Rove? Why was the White House involved? Why did Harriet Miers seem more tuned into the process than Gonzales himself? Why if Gonzales can’t answer these questions should he remain as AG? If he doesn’t know what’s going on, he has shown again that he is too incompetent to keep the office he now holds.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 70
They should have read one or two of the threads here yesterday.
noen @ 31
Yes. And in case they should miss the point, a list of these weasel-words should be provided to each committee member. (And if I hear once more that anyone ‘needs to understand’, I’m going to be sick.)
conniptionfit @ 64
If this is true it might explain why the dems are also not pursuing the questioning aggressively. The fix is in, somewhere behind the scenes, strings were pulled.
jayt @ 68
I keep hoping they’re just trying to lull him until he’s off-guard and then, pow.
What! a pup can hope
emptywheel @ 71
Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes!!!
LS @ 44
If he was previously sworn in, could he be considered still sworn in?
Jane (nyc) at 57 — Yes — staffing languished quite a bit the last 6 years in a number of committees where shared staffing had always been the tradition. There wasn’t a lot of oversight being done and, with limited budgets, the GOP leadership shifted the focus to moving staffers for bill mark-ups and insertion of earmark provisions in budgetary bills, etc. — and took away from experienced oversight staffers who were either let go of shifted elsewhere. It is my understanding that staffing those committees back up again has been difficult because older, more experienced folks have moved out of DC and on to other jobs and the folks they are bringing in are young, inexperienced kids out of college who haven’t dealt with this much at all and are undergoing a very steep learning curve. They need to bring in outside expertise and fast.
Oh, another question.
Do you believe it was appropriate, in your first speech to USAs, including one USA who was investigating the White House, to emphasize that USAs work for teh White House? Does that constitute tampering with an active investigation?
Has Bush’s name come up yet?
JEP @ 73
C-SPAN won’t be on Sirius soon, IIRC
Mr Gonzales, what do you actually do at the Department of Justice: not your job description, but your actual responsibility, if any.
Why did you delegate hiring authority to the White house liaison office, which is outside the DoJ, and who told you that was permissible?
Is there any reason we should not impeach you for perjury, incompetence, and moral turpitude?
TexBetsy (formerly Texas Betsy) @ 74
Hey TexBetsy,
What inspired the name change?
Such a mess in the House, are they ever coming back….?
The question I would like to see asked is this:
Do you think it is appropiate for members of congress or high ranking party officials to lobby the White House and complain about specific partisan investigations not taking place and in turn allowing the White House unfettered access into the DOJ to make changes on removing USA’s?
F/Up Isn’t this in fact what has transpired by your own admission?
I’m disappointed and depressed by the lack of focus. Conyers started out well, but he didn’t keep his hands on that snake’s throat. The others are all over the place. Why can’t they set up a subcommittee to handle this one affair, put some real prosecutors on it, and run it the way Joe McCarthy ran his shop. No time limits and get down to business. Not saying that old Joe’s business was good business; I’m just talking about the procedure.
This isn’t working, and time is not on our side. Thank God for Leahy and Waxman.
Mr AG: Can you tell us why you felt it was appropriate to delegate hiring and firing decisions to Sampson and Goodling? What were their qualifications to handle this important responsibility? Why didn’t you assign the AAG to oversee the process? Why did you trust them?
Just wanted a shorter name.
Mad Dogs @ 58
Oooh, I like that.
Elliott @ 82
Slowly but surely, our country is being taken away from us.
Here’s what they need to ask Gonzales:
Why was Carol Lam fired? [I know he won’t answer honestly. I want him to lie, obviously and on the record.]
Where is the documentation supporting the reason for her firing?
Did you ever discuss the impact of her firing on the Wilkes/Foggo investigation with anyone?
[If he says no or I don’t recall or anything except yes] That’s unacceptable. You are either a liar or completely incompetent. Either way, you are unfit to be the AG. Resign or be impeached.
[If he says yes] Turn over all the documentation about these discussions.
I’d ask this:
AG Gonzales, you have stated that you delegated to senior DOJ staff the task of identifying USA’s who need to be replaced. However, not one of your senior staff will admit having put any names on the list. If they didn’t put the names on the list, who put them there?
Also, with the “target” language re: Sanchez,
I think the Republicans must have been expecting her to do this, because they jumped all over her attempt to put the Times article in the record BEFORE she ever used the word “target.”
Also, Translating Gonzo-speak:
“in-artful” means “when I told you a pack of lies, I didn’t do a very good job of it. I should have been more convincing.”
Bob in HI
LS @ 88
Years of Republic damage takes more than a few months to correct.
The Republican Party — the best crooks money can buy.
The HJC Democrats — bumbling incompetency raised to an art form.
Wonder if this whole thing is going anywhere. Can congress go any farther with it than they have already? Bringin Gonzo up to the hill weekly to repeat his lies doesn’t seem to accomplish much.
for your pleasure as you’re thinking of what questions will result in – as Suzanne so eloquently put it – AbuG being cuffed, here’s what it looks like:
Former Eagle River GOP legislator, Pete Kott.
Current Wasilla GOP legislator Vic Kohring.
There are more pictures, but these GOP crooks keep over-working our hardworking mods, don’t they?
Swear in Gonzo when you reconvene, Mr. Conyers!!!
katymine @ 54
I still have an old Mac Performa in the closet with it’s guts all hanging out because I made the mistake of punishing the computer when I heard the Supremes defended Cheney’s executive privelege to protect his energy industry task force from legal scrutiny…
I jumped up in a rage from my computer chair, knocking the whole desk over and the computer hit hard, busted open and the motherboard must have cracked because it is forever toast, I keep it as a reminder not to punish the messenger…
Monitor still works!
emptywheel @ 72
this is a big issue that needs lots of followup IMO.
Oh and three more:
Conyers has always been a bumbler of sorts. So he set that tone for his committee.
With US-A number 9 now in the bin, wonder when # 10 will appear? One little two little three little prosecutors…
JEP @ 100
We have a bunch of old hubcaps out back and a hammer to beat the hell out of them when such occasions arise.
LS @ 78
IMHO, these are common sense questions that any reasonable person could or should ask when seeking to get answers – REAL answers. The Ds seem almost timid, although I’m not exactly sure why. With the number of Ds and even some Rs saying AGAG should resign, why aren’t the Ds being much more aggressive? Conyers needs to step it up and use his gavel to keep the committee on track.
-ck- @ 95
Correction:
“The HJC Democrats — the best bumbling incompetency money can buy.”
Lieberman isn’t the only mole.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 83
I’d pay good money to see you and Marsy march into the committee room, up behind the dias, and tell a couple of staffers to shove over and watch how it’s done!
Elliott @ 78
we all are, Elliott
Question to the FDL gang – If Abu was not sworn in, is it OK for him to lie to Congress? What is the diff?
sumpl @ 38
For this AG there is no difference.
man, i had much greater expectations from john conyers. sanchez is trying but is being hounded by repukes.
Gnome de Plume @ 110
Still a no-no.
Question:
Why was Patrick Fitzgerald ranked as undistinguished in his job?
Christy Hardin Smith @ 81
yeah, like Marcy!!!!
EW 101,
“What personal attributes did you find particularly appropriate in Goodling for her to serve as the counselor to the top law enforcement office of the US?
Gonzo: “Well, I do recall that I saw that photo of her sitting on that dock or whatever it was…”
/s
Here’s a question for Abu…”What brand of handcuffs would you prefer?”
JayPees?
Gnome de Plume @ 110
Did she use the TARGET word?
emptywheel @ 103
You’re on it today! Every day really, but especially today!
Gnome — it is a crime to lie to COngress, whether under oath or not. But, in my experience, having someone swear puts an extra emphasis on the truth-telling aspect — and there is nothing more glaring on the witness stand than a sweaty, squirmy liar.
emptywheel @ 82
he would say yes and no. maybe if someone asked him to summarize that speech again and let everyone else hear how ridiculously inappropriate it was.
We now have a letter that states you delegated hiring and firing to Kyle Sampson and Monico Goodling? Why?
Why didn’t you bring this up to the committee?
Why wasn’t included in the list of documents sent over?
Were you aware Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson were using political affiliation in hiring career prosecutors?
How closely were Goodling and Sampson in contact with the WhiteHouse?
If the Repubs won’t stay on topic, accuse them of contempt or Congress or obstruction of justice…just control the hearing Mr. Conyers!!!
In partial defense of this cmmittee, it is exceedingly difficult to effectively question someone by committee. What Conyers needs to do is name a skilled trial lawyer as counsel for the majority and cede the majority’s time to counsel.
A good trial lawyer given one hour to cross Gonzalez would eviscerate him and end this charade.
annb @ 122
And WHEN did you know? (for the last 2 questions)
Gonzo clearly lied to the senate- if they aren’t going after him for that one- what’s the point of the further testimony?
I want the committee to make Abu answer directly as to why he delegated authority to Goodling and Sampson. What in their puny backgrounds and qualifications enabled Abu to make this decision and proclaim it in a little memo. I want them to drag more of his relationship with those two out into the sunlight.
Also why considering the charges that the USA s were investigating, the so-called performance stuff sounds bogus and trite. Why fire Graves for some bogus voter fraud suit, he and the judges obviously thought was bogus if not downright Jim Crow. What makes Abu think this case was so worthy of pursuing even now? And why does he think Rove should input on USAs (e.g. Iglesias) like he is some kind of specialist on voter fraud. When actually Iglesias was a real specialist.
Also, What about asking if the firing of McKay affected this case?
Sorry for the ramble. But this stuff just goes round and round, and the Repubs run static and there’s very little followup.
This hearing, and specifically the questioning/performance of the majority, leaves me little hope that any Articles of Impeachement of Gonzo, Cheney or Bush will ever be initiated.
(McKinney and Kucinich notwithstanding).
old gold @ 124
OR they could actually coordinate their questioning.
Question(s), for the record, to ask?
Are you, Mr. AG, under duress. Have you been proffered something? Anything? Would you consider testifying under protection of the 5th, Amendment? Are you at this point capable of telling the truth? Would you like to correct any of your previous testimony?
old gold @ 122
Why, oh why, didn’t they do that??????
I’d ask what KO keeps asking: “Mr AG, can we see your diploma”?
old gold @ 125
Yes. Now. Don’t wait. Do it now.
P J Evans @ 85
I’m reading delegation memo and it says WH Liaison of DOJ (Monica worked for DOJ). It would be impossible for Abu to delegate up to the WH. That’s why I believe they did this – effectively delegating the power back to Rove via Goodling.
I’m fighting the urge to call Nadler’s office (my congress critter)and refer him/his staff to this thread.
This hearing is going nowhere as the Republicans are there to ask as many off the subject questions as possible to eat up time. Oh, so, Rovian!
emptywheel @ 104
Yes! What led you to believe that a very young, inexperienced staffer with no trial or prosecutor administration office time was the right person to delegate the hiring and firing of employees far above his pay grade and importance?
Why did Abu take on the power to hire and fire all non civil service employees in the DOJ, even those of senior officials? Why did he delegate such vast authority to two inexperienced underlings? Why specifically did he delegate this authority to Monica Goodling? Why did he think it was so important to include the White House in such decision making since Goodling was liaison to the White House?
Jane (nyc) @ 135
DO IT!!!
Is it possible that he was unsworn because it is easier to prosecute for misleading Congress? I’m told the bar for perjury is much higher-possibly a strategic move to get him for misleading as opposed to having him get away with perjury?
Send lawyers, guns and money. Seriously, you can hire a half decent trial lawyer for $175 an hour in Chicago; an investigative reporter is cheaper, just HIRE some as part timers or contract employees.
Failing that, hopefully the young uns can read and use the Internet (all they seem good at these days), why can’t they JUST READ THESE QUESTIONS AND BRING THEM TO THEIR BOSSES TO GET ASKED?
SERIOUSLY, ARE ANY STAFFERS GOING TO TAKE SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS AND GET THEM ASKED? Anyone in the DC area able to make it happen? know any staffers? Make it so…
Looks like Gulliani will be the next president. Big surprise after his low polling numbers and exit polls saying Hillary was the winner. Wake up. WE live in a fascist country. Do not buy from Exxon or BP ..Home Depot or Wal Mart. Feeds the beast.
rwcole @ 127
They’re goin’ for Rove via Abu. If Abu’s impeached or fired they lose the only link (save Monica) to Rove. I believe they would rather get Rove thru Abu…the two birds with one stone theory. Clearly my opinion only.
TexBetsy (formerly Texas Betsy) @ 119
Yes, after initially alluding to the “investigation”, she summarized and described Lewis as “target”.
A kos diary links to a NYT article that includes this quote, without any sense of irony:
“A Republican strategist familiar with Mr. Rove’s thinking said that Mr. Rove, the president’s chief political adviser, “believes it’s in the best interest of the president for Gonzales on his own to resign.” But, this person said, Mr. Rove and other like-minded aides have concluded that “there’s nothing they can do — it’s about the relationship between Gonzales and the president.” “
kos link
conniptionfit @ 109
Hear, hear! And take emptywheel along with you!
That’s just bad management if the staff isn’t up to the task and the Reps have let themselves go into a hearing like this unprepared as a result. I’m sure there are plenty of people who would be willing to help out, pro bono if necessary, to get this organized.
old gold @ 122
I doubt that will ever happen. Not in this committee or in any other committee. That isn’t how power works in this country. Justice is history, all that is left is power.
This hearing is making me sick.
There are days when I feel hopeful, and days when I feel that this administration is going to get away with everything they have done. This day is one of the latter.
Why bother with a hearing if you are not going to advance the ball in the investigation? We don’t need any more demonstrations that Gonzo is a lying idiot.
Here’s an idea for a few questions….
Mr. Gonzales, why did you feel it was necessary to go outside the normal performance review process to evaluate USA’s?
Did anyone at the White House instruct or advise you or anyone who once reported to, or currently reports to you, to initiate this ad-hoc review process?
Has he ever been asked for a list of the senior people that Sampson was supposed to consult in the “process” (I have decided to forbid my daughter to ever use the word process.) Do we have any idea if he is talking about five people or fifty or five hundred?
OT–but for *xyz and others, I’ve finally gotten the emptywheel video we shot last march up at both second life and on the web.
There’s a dkos diary I’ve put up. that has the links.
Lou Costello @ 134
707!!
Holy CRAP is this hearing useless so far. The Republicans are running cover by yapping about everything BUT the issue at hand (except when they’re yapping about how they shouldn’t be investigating the US Attorney issue) and the Democrats all seem to be sleepwalking through the whole thing, almost as though somebody tranked them before the hearing.
And God love Conyers, but he’s running this hearing like an elderly substitute teacher.
The Republicans spent a good five minutes or more filibustering over a single word from a previous member’s questioning, and Conyers’ response was a laconic, almost pleading “Aw, come on…”
This whole thing is just uncomfortable as hell to watch, and quite honestly I think that if it’s having any effect at all it’s to undermine the investigation as a whole. The Senate had their shit together SO much better.
Old Gold at 125
“In partial defense of this cmmittee, it is exceedingly difficult to effectively question someone by committee. What Conyers needs to do is name a skilled trial lawyer as counsel for the majority and cede the majority’s time to counsel.”
These Dems need to get together and come up with a logical series of questions that provide continuity between the shiny objects the R’s are floating… And they also need to determine when to acquiesce to GoneZo’s obfuscation and when to push for details. Someone mentioned earlier that the Goodling/Sampson issue makes him the most nervous, then they should stay on that line of questioning until he says something telling…
Everyone: call their congressman who is on the committee and DEMAND they ask some of these questions.
brendan @ 145
HEAR THAT GONZO??!! THROW ROVE UNDER THE BUS!!!
conniptionfit @ 138
Definitely they need to ask all of Marcy’s questions.
Did Mr. Rove have input into the USA’s list? Did Goodling/Sampson give you a list of names of people who contributed to the list?
Why can’t these reps ask direct questions? I don’t only have a headach, I have a migraine!
I am SO frustrated with this hearing I think my head is going to explode. I suppose the silver lining is that this episode shows some of these people for the true jackasses they are. Other than that I don’t see anything coherent or meaningful coming out of this.
Just when I was beginning to have a glimmer of hope for this country – shot down again!
So, why can’t they impeach this guy for obstruction of justice already?
Gnome de Plume @ 109
No he can’t lie just because he’s not under oath. There is a record. Same rules apply.
rwcole @ 98
how about someone asks Abu for a list of all those “senior staff” who supposedly had input into the list and invite them up for some testimony? ask each one of them the same question: did you contribute to the list? when the answer is no in every case, then move on to Rove and Miers. we are wasting time asking Abu any more questions he can simply swat away.
who the fuck is bobby scott?
Since Abu has promised that he would do better but can name no specific action to improve the process other than saying he has thought about it some, why should he remain as AG? IOW what level of incompetence and failure does it take before you (Abu) will resign as Attorney General?
Raw Story: New evidence suggests White House lied on
Bush role in attorney firings… Developing…
Mr AG —- describe your last 3 conversations with rove plz.
LS @ 137
Why doesn’t EVERY Congress person (yes even the minority) have an intern perform net research for hearings?
SHould be SOP.
And if anything like EW’s line of inquiry gets asked, I’ll be impressed. Well, the line itself is impressive (along with the distinguished typist) but if it gets into the record somehow would be worthy of miracle/sainthood status.
Geez. These folks know TMP is doing the digging into emails, etc. Even with amemic staffing, you’d think they’d be able to take advantage of the free help.
Review: BOBBY SCOTT’s questions got Gonzo to admit WH discussion of WH firing, mentioning Rove by name!
Bob in HI
TexBetsy (formerly Texas Betsy) @ 163
Yep – that’s a good one
JEP @ 104
is Black from Guam included in the list yet?
Okay. Yes, Christy. Headache here too!
I just fired off an e-mail to Conyers (no I’m not a constituent in his district – just used Judiciary Comm. link on his website, which seems to have worked o.k. ;->)
It’s probably too late for Dems on the committee to get their act together, but here’s a sample of the sort of pestering folks might do – not the best, but at least helped relieve some of my own head-full-of-steam.
They need to know:
WE ARE WATCHING!
WE ARE NOT AMUSED!
Voters have given Dems. a chance.
Our Reps. MUST take advantage of their opportunity to change “politics-as-usual,”
OR face consequences in future elections.
This afternoon I will be doing math. No Gonzales. Just like this am. I am not disappointed.
twolf1 @ 163
Now THAT would be a surprise.
(total snark)
Steve Soto tees off on Lamar Smith (R-TX)!
Seems that Lamar Smith thinks it’s time already to end the Gonzales inquiry because it’s a “fishing expedition”.
But when Bill Clinton was president, Smith supported a $75 million multi-year inquiry into a failed Arkansas land deal, and then supported the morphing of that multi-year inquiry into one focusing on whether or not Clinton lied about sex.
Back then, he thought that obstruction of justice, perjury, and impeding the work of federal prosecutors was grounds for the impeachment of federal officers (like Gonzales). Yet today, when a fellow Republican like him is in the White House — ehhh, not so much.
If anyone was looking for a Letter to the Editor topic for today, here you go!
TexBetsy (formerly Texas Betsy) @ 118
I didn’t hear her say it,
that kerfuffle seemed maybe staged by the repubs. Like maybe they were waiting for the Lewis situation to come up so they could throw some sand in some eyes.
Until this morning I was not aware that Abu entered the Air Force and went to the Academy, but did not finish. Instead he graduated from Rice Univ. I would like to know if he left the Air Force or was kicked out. I realize that this goes to somethinng he might have done when ‘he was young and foolish’, but given the possibility of blackmail of a high gov’t official, I think someone should ask the question about his Air Force records.
molly @ 143
gee, you sure give up easily, don’t you?
Christy for Congress!!!
(I know, I was promoting Marci for Congress on an earlier thread, but I am quite serious that we need a blogger in “da house.”)
Imagine if those two were the ones actually asking these questions… Or TRex…
Now that could be on pay TV!
The best prep for this hearing was the Senate hearings. I’m stunned that, with the obvious lies Abu spun there, the HJC hasn’t expoited them.
oblio @ 155
While this is definitely true, I’m afraid that unless the Ds start getting or making some headline-grabbing statements, they will be be fruther tarred in the media as politicizing this hearing for partisan gain. However, if there was something of substance that comes out, the dynamic would be changed making the Rs look like they are part of the cover up and the Ds are good detectives.
It would be interesting to know how many hits FDL is getting from Washington DC today (and from Congress). You folks are wonderful doing for this in real time.
Of those thousands and thousands of employees you have, Mr. Gonzales, how many of them are your Chief of Staff. In a typical week, how often would you meet or speak with your Chief of Staff?
Of those thousands and thousands of employees, how many are the Deputy Attorney General. Same.
How many of those thousands are USAs? How many USAs did you personally approve be fired? With respect to Yang, if we discover that anyone other than the President himself did tell her that she would be fired if she did not leave, would you say that this was without your approval?
Did the President approve the list of USAs to be fired? Where USAs told that they were being contacted in the President’s name and authority to be fired? How did you know that you had authority for the firings? How did Sampson and Goodling and Elston and Mercer and Battle know that they had authority to fire USAs who were not otherwise subject to being fired by any of them?
THEN JUMP TO:
Ask about the old WaPo and recent Waas articles (tied to the blocked OPR investigation)
Mr. Gonzales, are you aware of instances where submissions were made to FISA court in violation of that court’s rulings and orders?
When you were White House Counsel or thereafter, are you aware of any instances where the DOJ was involved in a) ignoring or refusing to follow an order or ruling of a FISA Court Judge; b) misrepresenting evidence to the FISA court; c) submitting information to the FISA court which might not have been accurate or d) making representations to the FISA court which would have been false or incorrect, whether or not under penalty of perjury?
When you were WHCounsel or thereafter, are you aware of any instances where there was pressure from anyone in the WH to pressure anyone in the DOJ to do any of the foregoing?
Have you at any time had conversations with Jim Baker regarding misues of evidence/information in, or misrepresenations to, the FISA court; breach of firewalls required by the FISA court; failure by DOJ to adhere to or follow orders of the FISA court?
When you were WHCounsel or thereafter, are you aware of any shut down of the terrorist surveillance program or portions thereof due to breaches of firewalls required by FISA court?
*********
All without asking for details on the surveillance program – just the interactions of DOJ with a sitting judge and any possible political pressure from the WH with respect to those interactions. Which would have been while he was WHC instead of AG, but the issue is WH pressure, isn’t it?
**********
AG Gonzales, how many lawyers at DOJ in your tenure as AG have commented to you, or to others but you have been aprised of those comments, on any possible Presidential Records Acts violations in connection with the transcation of DOJ business on RNC email accounts.
What would be the competency level required by a DOJ lawyer to realize that using the RNC server and equipment and using and deleting emails relting to DOJ business on such a server would violate the Presidential Records Act?
With respect to the concern for protection of voting rights, are you aware of any soldiers in Florida whose votes were not allowed to be counted because of voter purge activities? How is DOJ working to protect the rights of soldiers and minorities and the poor to vote? What are Jim Crow laws Mr. Gonzales? What is the impact of Jim Crow laws?
What specific memoranda and authorizations were given by DOJ to breach its own rules on voter fraud suits?
Let’s pursue the example you gave of a President’s right to set policy and a USAs duty to work in accord withthose policies. Does that include a duty to file a groundless suit in order to make the President’s policy numbers look good? Is the President a lawyer? Does a USAs duty to work with Presidential policy include a duty to set aside their prosecutorial discretion and allow a non-lawyer to make decisions as to what suits are and or not pursued? At what point is the President and WH required to back out of individual prosecution decisions, without regard to his concern for his policies?
some quickies
I’m disgusted by the line of questioning and nauseated by AGAG. the highlight for me came in the first 5 minutes when the Code Pink (was that Medea Benjamin?) could be seen behind Gonzo before she was asked to leave. Makes me long for the antics of Abbie Hoffman.
Having taken a day off from work to watch this whole unsworn charade of weak questions and pathetic answers left me feeling sick. After the first half hour I went out to work in my raspberry patch and I’m going to spend the rest of the day gardening.
Mr AG — What other email adds do you have besides DOJ?
In re my 171:
go get-em, dawgs.
ask yer best.
check yer spellings et al.
1st one to get a question thru, please share the x-perience ;->
so, I’m nuts? Has naw-thing to do wid-it.
Mr Gonzales, since you have been giving us the runaround, and refusing to provide straight answers, we demand that you answer with documentation that answers each specific question. You have several minions with you, send them for the documentation. We’ll wait. No, you’re not going anywhere, sit back down!
My first question, why are you still the Attorney General.
Second question, why are you still here.
A question; Don’t these peop[le asking questions have any sense of shame or more importantly the knowledge that they are directly contributing to the destruction of our democracy with their so very short sighted inanities put forth as questions. Goddammit
tommy yum @ 163
He’s been asking the best questions this morning. Stays on point, too.
Bob in HI
Blank Kludge @ 129
conyers is no Peter Rodino
…and where is the paper trail, the supporting documentation as to why the USAs who were fired
*should* have been fired and now, according to you, should not be reinstated?
Also: If the number of USAs who went to the top 15 law schools has now dropped to the level of those law schools ranked 65th and below, how have the criteria for hiring changed?
‘Mornin’ Bob-you’re up early-nice to see you!
Subway Serenade @ 181
hopefully… hopefully… LOTS! ;->
Re: Air Force Academy and Abu
It’s not unusual for people at service academies to leave after two years if they think they can’t hack it. It’s their last opportunity to get out before incurring a service obligation.
Don’t know specifically about AFA but at the Naval Academy, the only acceptable answers to a question from an upperclass mid are:
1. Yes sir
2. No sir
3. No excuse sir
4. I’ll find out sir
Not exactly the kind of atmosphere Abu would thrive in. *g*
Phoenix Woman @ 170
What is even more surprising is that our Dems representatives don’t think “that obstruction of justice, perjury, and impeding the work of federal prosecutors” is worth the effort to actually show up or ask tough and pointed questions of a witness.
Ask more about today’s Graves article in the Post, especially after that taunting little pas de deux with Lungren about supposed voter fraud.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..id=topnews
Paul Lukasiak complains on a TPM thread: “I wish someone had pointed out that Graves was fired as part of the exact same “process” that resulted in the firing of the eight — he appeared on a list, and got fired.” What does “process” mean?
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003192.php
Bob Schacht @ 185
you’re right, bob. he started out off-topic, but got to the point and stayed there.
kdh22 @ 168
I do not recall that…
I don’t remember that…
I don’t remember remembering that..
Dumbwya @ 155
For me, it wouldn’t do any good as my critter is the (not so) honorable Lamar Smith, R, ranking member, abu apologist
Bob Schacht @ 187
From 1st district Virginia – my congress critter. He’s been there for a number of terms and is really quite good.
An honors student at MacArthur High School in Houston, Gonzales enlisted in the United States Air Force in 1973, for a four year term of enlistment, serving two years at Fort Yukon, Alaska and two years as a cadet at the United States Air Force Academy. Prior to beginning his third year at the academy, which would have caused him to incur a further service obligation, he transferred to Rice University (Houston, Texas), where he was a member of Lovett College and earned a bachelor’s degree in political science in 1979. He then earned a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Harvard Law School in 1982.
Gonzales has been married twice: he and his first wife, Diane Clemens, divorced in 1985; he and his second wife, Rebecca Turner Gonzales, have three sons.
(Gonzo left the academy to ditch his service obligation- sound familiar?)
denise @ 183
Rototilling is great for anger management
Ok – a couple more quickies.
If, as you stated, the American people are mostly concerned, not with your effecitiveness or credibility, but with terrorism and keeping their children safe, what qualifications did Schlozman have to pursue terrorism and child safety related cases? To what extent has experience with and aptitude for investigation and pursuit of terrorism cases and child safety related cases been a factor in the appointment of replacement USAs?
You indicated that interference with an investigation would be a crime. Carol Lam is reported to have asked for addtional time to make an effective transition on her huge corruption cases and was told she had to leave immediately – without concern for the impact on her pending cases – and the FBI agent in her district who complained that her removal was having an adverse impact on the cases has now, very suspiciously soon after Lam’s removal and after being contacted by FBI with admonitions not to speak out, resigned.
How can you assure us that those cases have not been interfered with?
If you have not been able, after all this time, to discover who recommended which USAs for removal and why – - how can the American People trust that you could competently investigate plots by terrorists?
RonD @ 191
Thanks. Maybe I’ll crash this afternoon, with my face falling onto the keyboard at work!
Bob in HI
nomolos @ 201
hey! never rototill when yer angry.
calm down 1st. ‘kay?
stay safe out there hon ;->
p.s., heaving shovels around is sorta fun, heh.
JEP@179-
Ya made my heart leap into my throat at the thought of TRex asking questions there
twolf1 @ 165
LINK
I hope that someone is gathering the questions from Marcy, Mary, and Hugh for uber fast transmittal to the committee?
PatVa @ 199
Naddler asked some good ones as well. And kept trying to bring abu back on topic.
They’re back
They’re back
When do they come back?
conniptionfit @ 205
I can see it now….
“Where in the hell did you get that suit?”.
It’s as Jon Stewart said to Bill Moyers, Gonzo is up in front of the nation, coming across as an incompetent, well-meaning, amiable pinhead to protect Bush.
Is there no process available to congress to summarily hamstring or fire this cheeseball and crimp the camorra?
Adie @ 204
I am baking bread at the same time…. very calming
Hearings back live! Jackson Lee, D-TX
Bob in HI
Are you having difficulty determining who made the decisions with respec to the USAs because the people in your department are untruthful, forgetful or incompetent?
hearing has resumed
egregious @ 207
SECOND THAT!
Someone? Anyone? Everyone?
JF @ 211
never mind :)
How big a problem do you think voter fraud is? Give me numbers.
Are poor and minorities most often involved in such prosecutions?
Do the poor and minorities most often vote Democratic?
Is voter suppression a bigger problem? Give me numbers.
When voter rolls are purged are the poor and minorities most often affected over other classes of voters? Give me numbers.
Why did 80% of prosecutions of state and local officials for corruption involve Democrats? Please explain.
Sheila Jackson Lee up
go zoe! you gotem by the neck!
Q: You have stated repeatedly that you felt you had a reasonable expectation that the “process” used to examine USA’s for possible replacement was a good one. You have also repeatedly said that it was not a good process after all, and that it is one of the things you would improve in hindsight. Who designed this process? If it was you, why did you allow the process to go forward without examining the results before approval?
Q: You have leaned back on the suggestion that “nothing improper occured” in this matter, and that anything short of outright impropriety means you’re not in trouble. What about gross incompetence in designing the process, overseeing the process, and acting upon the recommendations resulting from that process?
Since you knew this would be asked: What steps have you taken to discover who created the list?
nomolos @ 214
Adie @ 204
nomolos @ 201
Rototilling is great for anger management
-
hey! never rototill when yer angry.
calm down 1st. ‘kay?
stay safe out there hon ;->
p.s., heaving shovels around is sorta fun, heh.
-
I am baking bread at the same time…. very calming
-
I’ve got some mulching to do, myself.
Lee asksing involved quesiton on civil rights prosecutions based on problems with texas justice and penal system
New thread.
Bustednuckles @ 211
That is a better question than most of the R’s
“Texas Youth Commission” that is a loaded issue, Gonzo may get bit in the butt by that one…
Thread
lolo got the ZeD☼
There’s a new
Go Sheila!
nomolos 214
Excellent! I’ve done that.
Pound that sucker into submission.
You GO GURLLL!
[oops! back to lurking…] *g*
Adie @ 214
With all due respect, I think people are delusional if they truly believe that any staffer, dem or repub, would ever spend an instant of their time on a blog. We are the rabble, they don’t associate with the likes of us. And it isn’t how things work anyway.
Fresh thread, as the Committee is back in session.
is it possible that they already have what they need from someone else?
JF @ 225
href=”#comment-682933″>nomolos @ 214
Adie @ 204
nomolos @ 201
Rototilling is great for anger management
-
hey! never rototill when yer angry.
calm down 1st. ‘kay?
stay safe out there hon ;->
p.s., heaving shovels around is sorta fun, heh.
-
I am baking bread at the same time…. very calming
-
I’ve got some mulching to do, myself.
-
-um- whole-grain bread?
‘ere Abu. Munch on this’n… ;->
P @ 5
Yes, yes. I have ben asking that question for weeks. “senior DOJ officials” –now there is a list I want to see!
noen at 230 — Not true. And although your pessimism is intriguing, it is factually inaccurate because I talk to staffers and members of Congress pretty much every week about something that comes up on this blog and elsewhere.
Mad Dogs @ 61
You can’t have a Special Prosecutor — the legislation for that provision was allowed to lapse several years ago.
Can you see the Senate or House getting this provision through?
Phoenix Woman @ 174
dakine01 @ 198
i had him for awhile too as a result of the obscene redistricting, but with the correction to some of the redistricting, i got my beloved lloyd doggett back. my condolences. and condolences to all of us as a nation.
noen @ 232
ooohhh THANKS Christy 237!
wellllll?
with all due respect-
if we do nothing, we can expect to get nothing done….
if you don’t try, you KNOW you’ll fail….
yep, simple as one of those awful inspirational posters, but…..
nevermind…. just you sit there & don’t fret yer purty lil’ head….
thankfully, cooler, brighter heads have already moved upstairs while we fret here in the dank basement… bye!
Christy 237 THANKS!
No, it is not going well at all, is it? Here is how the world ends (from H. Zimmer, ed. J. Campbell, Myths and Symbols in Indian Art …):
“Men are filled, at last, with only lust and evil. There is no one, any more, in whom enlightening goodness prevails: no real wise man, no saint, no one uttering truth and standing by his sacred word. The seemingly holy brahmin is no better than the fool. Old people, destitute of the true wisdom of old age, try to behave like the young, and the young lack the candor of youth. … The will to rise to supreme heights has failed; the bonds of sympathy and love have dissolved; narrow egotism rules. Indistinguishable ninnies conglomerate to form a kind of sticky, unpalatable dough. When this calamity has befallen the once harmoniously ordered City of Man, the substance of the world-organism has deteriorated beyond salvage, and the universe is ripe for dissolution.”
What is lacking is the will to reveal the truth. There used to be people called philosophers, then there were scientists, now we have … what? … the U.S. Duma, subservient to the czar?
That said, confront the AG with the memo giving Sampson/Goodling hire/fire authority but requiring the Ag’s sign-off: walk him through how that all worked, with examples. If he “doesn’t recall” how it all worked, put him on sick leave and call him a cab.
lets hope some of the Senate Judic. Comm staffers are reading here. see Mary4 and emptywheel questions above.
conniptionfit @ 202
oh my. wouldnt that be fun.
Commons3nse @ 210
yup. impeachment
noen @ 229
not true. lots of them are kids. believe me, they blog (here and elsewhere).
Thanks, Christy, for finally saying something about what I had been thinking. Do we not have evidence of “witness tampering” here?
What about suborning perjury? When Karl Rove coached witnesses, last March, from the DOJ, who were scheduled to testify before congress, he told them nothing about his own connections to the U.S. Attorney firings. Is suborning perjury always an active crime. Can it be passive? Like, suborning perjury by omission of facts, while coaching witnesses?
As far as obstruction goes, isn’t that Karl’s middle name? Karl “Obstruction of Justice” Rove?
Karl has always been stunned and appalled that Nixon didn’t have a big old bonfire with the “Watergate Tapes.” He might just burn the W.H. to the ground before he ever admits to a damn thing. He could always say that Iranians did it, and we would be off and running.
Or maybe not. Better think twice about messing with the truth, now Karl.
I have a headache too, thank you…
katymine @ 53
Me too, I listened to this mornings session on my XM walker which I bought just to listen to C-SPAN how pathetic is that, lol.
I would like to know what Abu knows about the firing of Fred Black (USA Guam). He was not AG then. Mindful of atty/client priviledge my question goes,
A) who decided Black had to go? (probably won’t get an answer)
B) did you see any documentation regarding his firing?
Ask LS @ 9
Ask him whether they were asked for advice about whether using RNC e-mail accounts were legal, and what the guidelines were. And whether they were asked for input as to guidelines. (Document requests here, too.)
Ask him whether anybody can produce any historic comparative analysis of what USA’s were productive and in what areas. (Document requests here, too.)
Ask him was any quantitative analysis utilised by anybody in the process of deciding which USAs to fire. What it the people trail for that?(Document requests here, too.)
Ask him where Samson got his input for his ‘list’ from, then where those people got their input from, ad terminuum (sp?). And what they were based on, and it’s documentary, for the documents and the documents sources. (Document requests here, too.)
He needs to be told that these questions represent evidentiary requests, and that he is expected to either produce the evidence, or he is expected to appoint some deputy who is empowered to produce the evidence.
By the way, what the hell does being a ‘facts witness’ mean, anyway? Has he just made this up?
Subpoena all e-mails sent among the principles involved in this: Goodling, Rove, Rove’s lapdogs, Gonzo, all his lapdogs, Domenici (and all in his office), and Heather Wilson (and all in her office). Also Cummins’ and Griffin’s emails to and from the Justice Department.