The hearing, "Department of Justice Oversight", is scheduled to start at 9:30am EST. C-Span1 is scheduled to carry it from 9:30am to 10:00am; C-Span3 will carry the full hearing. At 9:00 am, CNN said, and I quote, "See it live this hour".
Viewing/audio options:
C-Span 3
Real Audio
Windows Media
CapitolHearings.org; follow directions. (I have never used this service, so I can't speak for it. bumblebums advises me that this service provides an audio link.)
No pictures please as a courtesy for dial-up users. New diary starts when current one reaches around 250 comments. Please recommend new diaries and unrecommend old diaries to minimize the number of Live Blog diaries on the Rec List.
Additional viewing option:
Reuters feed (courtesy of peace voter - I couldn't put this in the "intro"; told me my intro was too long!)
[UPDATE: 5:20 PM EST: NEW RESOURCE: Live Blogging PDF Archive Update#1 provided by nowheredesign}
List of Live-Blog Diary volunteers for today:
Part 2: donnamarie
Part 3: kate peterson
Part 4: Miss Blue
Part 5: Catte Nappe
Part 6: asimbagirl
Part 7: jancw
Part 8: Night Owl
Part 9: gonzo
Part 10: drational
Part 11:
Part 12:
Part 13:
Part 14:
Part 15:
We need more diary volunteers. If you would like to participate today in producing one of the live-blog diaries, please leave a comment indicating your preference for one of the open slots in response to my first comment. We'll take up to 20 total names. Thank you!
To today's live-blog diarists: For new diaries in today's series, please link back to the previous diary only. This will save you time in your diary preparation. Also, please copy the remaining diary volunteers list into your new diary entry.
The only witness today will be Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Committee Members:
Patrick J. Leahy
CHAIRMAN, D-VERMONT
Edward M. Kennedy Arlen Specter
D-MASSACHUSETTS RANKING MEMBER, R-PENNSYLVANIA
Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Orrin G. Hatch
D-DELAWARE R-UTAH
Herb Kohl Charles E. Grassley
D-WISCONSIN R-IOWA
Dianne Feinstein Jon Kyl
D-CALIFORNIA R-ARIZONA
Russell D. Feingold Jeff Sessions
D-WISCONSIN R-ALABAMA
Charles E. Schumer Lindsey Graham
D-NEW YORK R-SOUTH CAROLINA
Richard J. Durbin John Cornyn
D-ILLINOIS R-TEXAS
Benjamin L. Cardin Sam Brownback
D-MARYLAND R-KANSAS
Sheldon Whitehouse Tom Coburn
D-RHODE ISLAND R-OKLAHOMA
If you had a chance to read Gonzales' op-ed piece in Sunday's Washington Post, you already have an idea of how his testimony will go. If you haven't read it, here's the link and some snippets. I intentionally bolded passages that stood out to me while I read the piece.
Nothing Improper
While I accept responsibility for my role in commissioning this management review process, I want to make some fundamental points abundantly clear.
I know that I did not -- and would not -- ask for the resignation of any U.S. attorney for an improper reason. Furthermore, I have no basis to believe that anyone involved in this process sought the removal of a U.S. attorney for an improper reason.
All of these documents and public testimony indicate that the Justice Department did not seek the removal of any U.S. attorney to interfere with or improperly influence any case or investigation.
While I have never sought to deceive Congress or the American people, I also know that I created confusion with some of my recent statements about my role in this matter. (He then goes on to basically lay the blame at the feet of Kyle Sampson.)
During those conversations, to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign.
(He concludes with)
In part because of my own experience, I know the real strength of America. It lies in our Constitution, our people and our collective unyielding commitment to equal opportunity, equal justice, common decency and fairness. ...
byteb's diary from Sunday provides community commentary regarding Gonzales' op-ed piece.
If you weren't around here Sunday evening, here is a "must-read diary" by (Kosmate and trial lawyer) jonnykilbane: A trial lawyer reviews Gonzales' WaPo statement.
But in Gonzo's case, there are no less than five instances where he does nothing short of admit that, at best, he is of no use to the inquiry because his recollection and perception are useless or, at worst, he is telling a tale so improbable that he must be lying. Not only are these five statements remarkable for their sheer volume, to my mind they also lay out a simple fact: somebody, or something, somewhere can or will definitively prove that the smoke we've been smelling for the last few months isn't from a grease fire in the kitchen, but rather it is from a fire raging throughout the whole damn house.
That, or Gonzales is mentally unfit to be Attorney General.
If you would like to read along during his opening statement, here is the link to the PDF file, provided by C-Span. Some of the highlights:
I have taken these important steps to provide information for two critical reasons: (1) I have nothing to hide, and (2) I am committed to assuring the Congress and the American public that nothing improper occurred here.
.. We further should agree on a definition of what an "improper" reason for the removal of a U.S. Attorney would be. As former Acting Solicitor General and Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger has stated, an improper reason would be: "The replacement of one or more U.S. attorneys in order to impede or speed along particular criminal investigations for illegitimate reasons."
I know that I did not, and would not, ask for a resignation of any individual in order to interfere with or influence a particular prosecution for partisan political gain. I also have no basis to believe that anyone involved in this process sought the removal of a U.S. Attorney for an improper reason.
While reasonable people may dispute whether or not the actual reasons for these decisions were sufficient to justify a particular resignation, again, there is no factual basis to support the allegation, as many have made, that these resignations were motivated by improper reasons.
... I have not spoken with nor reviewed the confidential transcripts of any of the Department of Justice employees interviewed by congressional staff. I state this because, as a result, I may be somewhat limited when it comes to providing you with all of the facts that you may desire.
I made mistakes in not ensuring that these U.S. Attorneys received more dignified treatment. Others within the Department of Justice also made mistakes. As far as I know, these were honest mistakes of perception and judgment and not intentional acts of misconduct.
I delegated the task of coordinating a review to Mr. Sampson in early 2005.
Mr. Sampson periodically updated me on the review. As I recall, his updates were brief, relatively few in number, and focused primarily on the review process itself. During those updates, to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign.
Near the end of the process, as I have said many times, Kyle Sampson presented me with the final recommendations, which I approved. I did so because I understood that the recommendations represented the consensus of senior Justice Department officials most knowledgeable about the performance of all 93 U.S. Attorneys. I also remember that, at some point in time, Mr. Sampson explained to me the plan to inform the U.S. Attorneys of my decision.
I also want to address suggestions that I intentionally made false statements about my involvement in this process. ... I do acknowledge however that at times I have been less than precise with my words when discussing the resignations.
For example, I misspoke at a press conference on March 13th when I said that I "was not involved in any discussions about what was going on." That statement was too broad. ... Of course, I knew about the process because of, at a minimum, these discussions with Mr. Sampson. Thus, my statement about "discussions" was imprecise and overbroad, but it certainly was not in anyway an attempt to mislead the American people.
We must ensure that all the facts surrounding the situation are brought to full light. It is my sincere hope that today’s hearing brings us closer to a clearing of the air on the eight resignations.
That is why I intend to stay here as long as it takes to answer all of the questions the Committee may have about my involvement in this matter. I want this Committee to be satisfied, to be fully reassured, that nothing improper was done. I want the American people to be reassured of the same.
And it goes on and on and on. I'm hoping that at least at this point, he'll be cut-off and that the rest of his opening statement will be made part of the record. The remainder of his opening statement covers National Security, Protecton of Children, Violent Crime, Drug Enforcement, Civil Rights, Border Security, Intellectual Property Enforcement, State/Local/and Tribal Assistance, and Responsiveness to Congressional Reports. In total, it is 24 pages long.
In reading through it, though, I found the following paragraph in the National Security section "interesting":
We all recognize that we cannot afford to make progress in the War on Terror at the cost of eroding our bedrock civil liberties. Our Nation is, and always will be, dedicated to liberty for all, a value that we cannot and will not sacrifice, even in the name of winning this war. I will not accept failures in this regard. ...
Then we have Ex-Justice Official's Statements Contradict Gonzales on Firings, regarding Michael A. Battle, former director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.
Battle told investigators that he was "not aware of performance problems with respect to several" of the prosecutors when he called to fire them, Schumer said in a conference call with reporters yesterday.
Schumer said Battle also contradicted Gonzales's assertion at a March 13 news conference that he had not seen any documents or participated in any discussions about the firings. A memo related to the dismissals was passed out at a Nov. 27 meeting attended by Gonzales and others, Battle told investigators.
"Mike Battle remembers a memo was distributed," Schumer said.
From this bit of information, we can surely guess the direction of some of Schumer's questions. Can't wait to hear how AG AG answers these questions!
And then we have pontificator's diary Bombshell: Article Suggests Bush Involved in Iglesias Firing from earlier this week:
At some point after the election last Nov. 6, Domenici called Bush's senior political adviser, Karl Rove, and told him he wanted Iglesias out and asked Rove to take his request directly to the president.
Domenici and Bush subsequently had a telephone conversation about the issue.
The conversation between Bush and Domenici occurred sometime after the election but before the firings of Iglesias and six other U.S. attorneys were announced on Dec. 7.
Iglesias' name first showed up on a Nov. 15 list of federal prosecutors who would be asked to resign. It was not on a similar list prepared in October.
The Journal confirmed the sequence of events through a variety of sources familiar with the firing of Iglesias, including sources close to Domenici. The senator's office declined comment.
mcjoan's Saturday night diary, Impeach Gonzales, contains excerpts from an interview with former Department of Justice Attorney, Daniel Metcalfe, who retired in January.
...these excerpts on the extreme politicization of the department by poorly qualified Bush sycophants underline precisely why Alberto Gonzales should never have been confirmed Attorney General. And why he should be removed from that office now.
Justice Department's Independence 'Shattered,' Says Former DOJ Attorney
[M]ost significantly for present purposes, there was an almost immediate influx of young political aides beginning in the first half of 2005 (e.g., counsels to the AG, associate deputy attorneys general, deputy associate attorneys general, and deputy assistant attorneys general) whose inexperience in the processes of government was surpassed only by their evident disdain for it....
[T]he process of agency functioning, however, became dramatically different almost immediately after Gonzales arrived. No longer was emphasis placed on accomplishing something with the highest-quality product in a timely fashion; rather, it became a matter of making sure that a "consensus" was achieved, regardless of how long that might take and with little or no concern that quality would suffer in such a "lowest common denominator" environment. And heaven help anyone, career or noncareer employee, if that "consensus" did not include whatever someone in the White House might think about something, be it large, small or medium-sized....
You have to remember that this is a Cabinet department that, for good reason, prides itself on the high-quality administration of justice, regardless of who is in the White House.... But that strong tradition of independence over the previous 30 years was shattered in 2005 with the arrival of the White House counsel as a second-term AG. All sworn assurances to the contrary notwithstanding, it was as if the White House and Justice Department now were artificially tied at the hip -- through their public affairs, legislative affairs and legal policy offices, for example, as well as where you ordinarily would expect such a connection (i.e., Justice's Office of Legal Counsel). I attended many meetings in which this total lack of distance became quite clear, as if the current crop of political appointees in those offices weren't even aware of the important administration-of-justice principles that they were trampling.
Fasten your seatbelts, folks. We're going to be in for one helluva ride!