PLEASE UNREC: Live Blog #3: House Judiciary Committee vs Gonzales

Who created the list, and why?

Part 1 is here with contact information for committee members

Link to part 2 is here.

• No pictures please as they slow things down too much.  


• 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


• If you're posting a Live Blog diary, you only need to link back to the previous diary not ALL of them.  Please include all the media links though.

The hearing is live on CSPAN 3

You can see the action here:

House Judiciary Committee Website

Real Player (C-Span)

Windows (C-Span)

CapitalHearings.org

Real Audio

Windows Media Audio

List of Live Blogging Volunteers Today:

List of Volunteers

 1. aimeeinkc

 2. donnamarie

 3. misterajc

 4. Marcus Tullius

 5. MKinTN

 6. bluesweatergirl

 7. Miss Blue

 8. dday

 9. bumblbums

10. gchaucer2

11. On The Bus

12.

13. Cedwyn

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

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.

•  Tip Jar, and reply to this to volunteer

  ... for 11, 12, 14...

  by misterajc on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:29:38 AM PDT

  •  I'll take 11 n/t

    by On The Bus on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:35:05 AM PDT

    •  You go it - thanks [NT]

      by misterajc on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:38:43 AM PDT

  •  thanks misterajc!

    but please drop the bit about "for dial-up users."  i know i'm nitpicking at this point, but it's not true.  the caveat exists because of the high activity in these threads.  they bog down for EVERYBODY.

    by Cedwyn on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:36:32 AM PDT

•  Important question, finally

  Scott:
  Did WH ask to remove any attys?
  [big question, finally]

  AG:
  Rove was concerned about voter fraud [I can’t believe AG says anything about Rove].

  by drational on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:30:24 AM PDT

  •  every single case

    one of the Dems should ask
    are you aware of any communications from the WH, bush, Rove, or Miers or their staff regarding this USA?

    by seesdifferent on Thu May 10, 2007 at 09:30:30 AM PDT

•  GOP critters

  seem to be asking questions unrelated to the firings to play up the message that "DOJ is doing so many important things and Dems are wasting the AG's time with this fishing expedition."

  Coordinated, ya think?

  by Crashing Vor on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:30:31 AM PDT

  •  Hell yes - Boner cooked this up.

    by mdgarcia on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:31:43 AM PDT

  •  Maybe this is why they went to see Bush

    yesterday

    by Da Rock on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:32:22 AM PDT

    •  But Timmeh said....

      by TexDem on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:36:15 AM PDT

    •  The official seal of approval has been granted

      that's why they all look so smug.  They are doing the lord's work and making Dear Leader happy by protecting the little weasel AG.

      by vigilant meerkat on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:38:00 AM PDT

•  Yang was targeted

  Scott:  
  Why is Yang on a list of  attys to remove.
  Was she not targetd by Miers?

  AG;
  I am not aware of any lists.  I haven’t read the editorial.

  by drational on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:32:34 AM PDT

  •  Yang got paid.

    I don't feel to sorry for her for taking a $1.5 million dollar pay day.

    by Scout Finch on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:51:27 AM PDT

    •  it sounds corrupt to me

      It sounds corrupt to me.  The law firm pays 1.5 million for a bonus to get her off the case she is working on.  Then they bill the Republicans 1.5 million to pay for it.

      by realtime on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:42:50 AM PDT

•  Scott

  asking about Yang's resignation - was she not on the Miers target list?

  Gonzales says maybe Miers knew of Yang's financial reasons and that was why she was possibly on the list.

  by Ellicatt on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:32:39 AM PDT

  •  ms. yang was good for

    at least 2 IDRs - i don't recall.

    by Cedwyn on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:37:35 AM PDT

•  another thug up, gallegly

  by khereva on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:33:19 AM PDT

  •  whining about resources

    gallegly blowing him again.

    by khereva on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:34:11 AM PDT

  •  OT, Gallegly bio

    No ad hominem required here.

    Huntington Beach, CA. Interested esp. in Immigration and Safety issues (from the tightest ass possible point of view) and is out of step with Californians in that he's waaaaaay anti-marijuana.

    Born 1944.

    by LNK on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:36:57 AM PDT

•  Terrraaaah!

  by bumblebums on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:33:40 AM PDT

  •  and pedophiles! he mentioned them earlier n/t

    by PanzerMensch on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:34:37 AM PDT

    •  and illegal aliens!

      scary brown people!

      Oh wait..

      by bumblebums on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:37:30 AM PDT

•  Yup, the plan is show how DoJ is"keeping us safe"

  Let's move on and forget about all this other shit...

  by Phil S 33 on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:33:53 AM PDT

  •  Sounding like Nicholson in Few Good Men

    Don't question the manner in which we provide your security.

    by PanzerMensch on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:35:22 AM PDT

•  Illegal aliens

  Invokes Atta and the fact that the Fort Dix crew were illegal aliens.

  by Marcus Tullius on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:33:59 AM PDT

•  Conyers needs to cut this shit off

  Questions are irrelevant to the hearing.
  Repubs went into this to slow down the hearing.

  by Oreo on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:34:08 AM PDT

  •  ding ding ding

    conyers not doing his job

    now onto illegal aliens...

    by khereva on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:34:50 AM PDT

•  sidebar

  Gallery
  Look, terrorists in New Jersey.  [Funny how they were investigating for a year and chose yesterday to break it open]

  by drational on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:34:37 AM PDT

  •  The U.S. Attorney who announced the case

    was Chris Christie, whom Krug has accused of conducting a political investigation of Bob Mendendez in NJ before the election last year.

    by lysias on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:37:26 AM PDT

  •  WE need more circuit city emps not gonzos! Nt

    by arkdem on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:01:39 AM PDT

•  any better feeds than c-span?

  i'm downloading quicktime so i can watch the committee webcast but i don't know if that one will be better or not.

  by guyermo on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:34:47 AM PDT

  •  I switched to cspan3 audio

    much better than the video... it got way too bad to justify seeing Gonzo's weasel face

    by Oreo on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:36:45 AM PDT

    •  linky?

      I'm watching on C-SPAN 3 right now (and it's fine) but I've had trouble with it in the past.

      Do you hace a link to the audio feed?

      ````
      peace
      
      

      by peace voter on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:49:36 AM PDT

•  What is with this "General"

  Don't think Abu was ever in the forces or are they just too lazy too put the "Attorney" in front of it?

  by dotsright on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:34:48 AM PDT

  •  This is the appropriate form of address.

    by Embee on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:36:01 AM PDT

    •  "Mister" is the term of address in the US.

      by khereva on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:36:31 AM PDT

      •  I guess Mister

        Attorney general is the most neutral and respectful.  That's fine for CongressCritters but I have tossed this around in my head for a long time (ever since Bush got snippy when some journalist, asking him a question, said "Mr. Bush" instead of "Mr. President").  How would I address them?

        Any f*cking way I wanted and if they objected I would remind them that I am their boss as taxpayer to their public servant.

        I know I would be ignored, a/o arrested, but it matters not.  Of course, the chances of my getting close to the Numbnuts Brigade is close to nil since they only appear publicly to pure supporters.  I say 'close to nil' because personal and professional contacts may enable it.

        by lgrooney on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:58:50 AM PDT

  •  It's worse than Judge

    which he was once briefly, thanks to a certain Gov. of Texas. I cannot figure out whether General is just sloppiness or deliberate misuse of a term. Even the Surgeon General, who can wear a uniform, isn't properly addressed as a general.

    by Compost On The Weeds on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:37:56 AM PDT

    •  "General" is correct

      He's the Attorney General, and the correct form of address is "General," just as it's "Secretary" for a cabinet member who is Secretary of Defense, for example.  

      by leevank on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:15:28 AM PDT

  •  Janet Reno was also called "General"

    at hearings, as is whoever is the Surgeon General.

    by murphy on Thu May 10, 2007 at 09:06:32 AM PDT

•  AG AG admits prosectors can be bribed

  Wang left for "financial reasons." Did Harriet Meyers help this along? Minorities should resent Gonzales assumptions. He's also used lack of being married and in the case of another, being married with 4 kids to put through college as "reasons."

  by Compost On The Weeds on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:34:56 AM PDT

  •  For those not hearing - not true.

    No admission of bribery.  Just said that Wang went into private sector for financial reasons.

    Let's be rigorous about the facts.

    by think blue on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:37:53 AM PDT

    •  True, I am carrying his namby pamby verbiage

      into a next logical implication which he cannot dare actually admitting.

      by Compost On The Weeds on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:45:14 AM PDT

•  Abu says,,,,

  "I'll be candid with you".  That's a first.  And of course, he'll only be "candid" when answering Repub questions that have NOTHING to do with this hearing.

  by Miss Blue on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:35:05 AM PDT

•  here we go again

  the "Gonzo should slide b/c he is fighting terrorism" riff. Explain why his tactics (namely, illegal wiretapping) had nothing to do with foiling the Fort Dix attack.

  by Omen on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:35:10 AM PDT

•  Question of resources --

  translation:  waiting for the Regent graduating class of 2007.

  by gchaucer2 on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:35:24 AM PDT

•  Absounders? n/t

  by PanzerMensch on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:35:36 AM PDT

  •  "absconders"

    i.e., look over there! evil illegals!

    by khereva on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:37:14 AM PDT

    •  And look up!

      Extraterrestrial aliens!

      I'm waiting to hear that next.

      by texasmom on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:39:46 AM PDT

•  "History has a strong history

  of repeating itself"

  Deep thoughts from Gellegly

  by bumblebums on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:35:38 AM PDT

  •  ROFL!

    Smoking fills your lungs with smoke.

    Hardened cement is hard.

    by PanzerMensch on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:37:16 AM PDT

•  AG: we need more money to lock up the Aliens.

  Not enough bed space and prisons. Good God!!!

  by Phil S 33 on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:37:26 AM PDT

  •  Need more beds = euphemism

    for lock them up, deny family visits, etc.

    by Compost On The Weeds on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:43:42 AM PDT

•  This is getting old fast

  which HAS to be the plan

  by Da Rock on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:37:38 AM PDT

  •  Yes, not like the Senators. n/t

    by think blue on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:38:34 AM PDT

  •  Bingo!! Even some of us aare turning this off

    the rest of the country is already asleep.

    by Phil S 33 on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:39:16 AM PDT

•  Last 18 months of your term?

  Please, let's hope NOT!

  by TheMomCat on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:37:41 AM PDT

•  Ah drug smuggling and human trafficking

  the real reason we're all here.

  /snark

  by Omen on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:37:48 AM PDT

•  Gallegly (R-CA) (nothing to do with the USAs)

  Gall:  what steps are being taken that illegal aliens stopped for traffic violations (can be identified and deported)?

  Gonzales:  this is done by state and local authorities. ... some jurisdictions are stepping up.  Its a question of resources; hundreds of thousands of people.  Sometimes we have to look at prosecuting other crimes first.

  Gall:  (quoting an article) alien absconders - those who have committed serious crimes in this country.  What is the DOJ doing to (apprehend and deport these people).  Is this a priority.

  Gonz:  we are doing all that we can do.  Dead space in prisons that can be contracted out - its a question of seeing if we can find additional space to hold these people.  The president supports a comprehensive plan; must be workable. ... we have no place to put them and they hide in our neighborhoods.

  by Ellicatt on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:37:57 AM PDT

  •  dead space in prisons?

    what a dolt.

    our prisons are full enough already.  we have what, about 2 million locked away.  why not build separate prisons for them?  why not take over new mexico and make a it a giant prison and we can put everybody that makes us unhappy down there. let's just keep putting people in prison forever!

    republicans have two ways to solve problems;

    1. bomb 'em

    2. lock 'em up

    by cosmic lattice on Thu May 10, 2007 at 09:36:51 AM PDT

•  Conyers: understood, OK to ask in writing

  and get answers in writing and add to the record.

  by LNK on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:38:18 AM PDT

•  Yeah that immigration really

  affect firings

  by Da Rock on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:38:21 AM PDT

•  Toady is Enough - Toady is More than Enough

  O.K. I put this up at the end of Live Blog 2. I have no embarrassment in putting it up at the start of Live  Blog 3.

  A Question For All Congress

  Why is this shambles of an Attorney General allowed to continue to drag down on the whole foundation of law in the United States in front of the American people and those around the world?

  No matter who stubbornly keeps him in office, no matter who wants to keep him as head of the judicial function for political reasons, this man shames everyone. Shames them and disheartens them.

  Today is worse than any other day of the congressional hearings because it displays once again the disingenuous, inept and criminal disregard that this miserable public figure. NOTHING has changed.

  For the sake of the ordinary citizen, for the sake of the judicial system, for the sake of the United States, this man must go immediately. If you are of that way of believing, for God’s sake this man must go.

  by Welshman on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:38:24 AM PDT

  •  Watch the Repubs. There's No Planet Where They'd

    tolerate removing him.

    by Gooserock on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:06:59 AM PDT

•  lofgren: please do your job

  looking into name checks.

  by khereva on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:38:41 AM PDT

•  ran down the clock on immigration questions n/t

  by PanzerMensch on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:38:44 AM PDT

  •  just as coble did on IP

    by khereva on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:39:26 AM PDT

•  Why are dems wasting time

  asking non-firing questions?

  by drational on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:39:05 AM PDT

  •  perhaps establishing his dereliction of duty?

    by khereva on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:39:55 AM PDT

•  Gonzales looks like he's ready to go home.

  must be vacation time...

  by Omen on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:39:40 AM PDT

•  I'm very disappointed in this hearing.

  Even the Democrats seem to be conceding that AG is here to stay.  No questions about e-mails, executive privilege.

  by think blue on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:39:48 AM PDT

  •  they've resigned themselves to it

    by not putting him under oath.

    by PanzerMensch on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:40:39 AM PDT

    •  He's NOT under oath?????

      by Phil S 33 on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:42:02 AM PDT

      •  NOPE! n/t

        by PanzerMensch on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:50:15 AM PDT

        •  Then why the f*ck

          are they even bothering with this charade? To get their faces on television?

          I'm totally disgusted.

          by Sharoney on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:50:47 AM PDT

•  Is this a general "Ask the General" questions??

  by Da Rock on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:39:51 AM PDT

  •  the new political gameshow. n/t

    by Omen on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:41:32 AM PDT

  •  It sure seems like it

    Although I think this was billed as an "oversight hearing for the DOJ".  Maybe that's why questions regarding many areas are being asked.

    by Ellicatt on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:42:19 AM PDT

•  I'm waiting for Gonzo to yawn.....

  by Da Rock on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:40:29 AM PDT

•  Good , on to Graves

  by bumblebums on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:40:30 AM PDT

•  Illegal aliens stoped for traffic violations are

  similar to the 9/11 hyjackers...

  AAAHHH!

  by jsamuel on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:41:00 AM PDT

•  WOW> Gonzo read a paper!

  by TheMomCat on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:41:07 AM PDT

  •  Well now we know he can read at least

    by Da Rock on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:41:44 AM PDT

    •  MAybe

      someone read it to him.

      by TheMomCat on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:57:38 AM PDT

•  OT, Lofgren bio

  born 1947
  California Dem. Smart.
  worked on Nixon impeachment! when she was staff assistant to Congressman don Edwards.

  [I think she and Gonzales should exchange hairdos]

  by LNK on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:41:22 AM PDT

•  no one's aware of any concerns

  no one's aware of anything at DOJ... (what do we pay these people for again?)

  by khereva on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:41:27 AM PDT

•  you fucking liar!!!

  by james risser on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:41:43 AM PDT

  •  come on, tell us how you really feel

    preferably in the vernacular of the plebeans

    by guyermo on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:01:51 AM PDT

•  WHY and WHO

  Lofgren;
  Now we learn about 9th, Graves.
  Graves was on Sampson list as early as 2006.  In 2005, Graves refused to sign on lawsuit against Missouri.

  AG:
  I have no basis to believe Graves left for this reason

  [SO WHY WAS HE ASKED TO LEAVE.  You have not told us any legitimate reasons for any firings]

  by drational on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:42:00 AM PDT

  •  i'm sure to the best of my ability

    that i am unaware of knowing why there might be a conern that anyone could be aware of...

    by khereva on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:43:01 AM PDT

•  he remembers quite a bit about Graves

  which was a year ago.  and not these 8 others which were a few months ago

  by guyermo on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:42:23 AM PDT

•  Please rec and unrec, folks!

  by Marcus Tullius on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:42:25 AM PDT

•  'i didn't know about it...

  ....until i read it in the nytimes!'

  did he really just say that???

  by james risser on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:42:57 AM PDT

•  Now asking questions about Graves

  And what does the AG say? "We're not aware that there were any problems."

  And how much preparation did the AG do?

  "Based on my understanding..."

  Facts, facts, where can they be hiding?

  by sawgrass727 on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:43:45 AM PDT

•  OH be RUDE for cryin' out loud

  by Da Rock on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:43:47 AM PDT

•  Fredo even more pathetic than last time

  he seems very nervous, especially about Monica.

  by Sargent Pepper on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:43:49 AM PDT

  •  Monica's gonna take the rap

    Ever hear of Ollie North?

    She takes the rap.  Does two years easy time.  And when she comes out, it's a Fox News commentator position for her.

    I'll bet anyone here $100 that I'm 100% correct.

    The Dems got weaseled again.  Without even ATTEMPTING to bring Goodling to a hearing.

    Idiots.

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:12:54 AM PDT

    •  Yes she takes the rap, but $100 to your fav

      charity says that she appeals, and appeals, and just as the prison door is about to slam on her, Bush pardons her on his way out the WH door.  I see no political fall out from pardoning her. I agree she has a Fox news job waiting for her.

      by sailmaker on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:42:36 AM PDT

•  Lofgren asks about Graves!!!

  ZL: news reports Graves targeted for removal in Dec 2006 bec had refused to sign onto lawsuit about voter fraud.  Would you have rec'd his removal on that basis?

  AG: No reason to believe that it had anything to do with Grave's departure.  Spoke to ______?  Signed onto complaint.  Not aware of any concerns about this.  Case was whether MO voter lists were accurate.

  ZL: Are you aware case was dismissed?

  AG: Considering whether should appeal.  Judgment was that should have sued districts instead of state.  But people expect voting lists to be accurate.

  ZL: Scholzman had little prosecutorial experience.  Doesn't it look like a plan to replace related to prosecution?  And DOJ's own criteria say don't bring lawsuits right before an election.

  AG: Civil rights guy stands behind this prosecution.

  ZL: Boston Globe.  Schlozman reshaping voting rights.  Didn't know anything about voting law.  Only wanted repubs to win.  Answer in writing.

  by think blue on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:44:24 AM PDT

•  lungren starts the BJ again

  how many guys do you have? how cool are you?

  by khereva on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:44:28 AM PDT

  •  mr. general, do you like me?

    please check 1.

    by khereva on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:45:05 AM PDT

•  bring in the gimp!

  by james risser on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:44:35 AM PDT

•  When "I was" kinda guy now

  by Da Rock on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:44:43 AM PDT

•  Lundgren again?!?

  Okay, so his last time wasn't actually his query time, but haven't we heard enough from him?

  by PanzerMensch on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:44:44 AM PDT

•  FOLLOW UP YOUR QUESTIONS, DEMS

  Lofgren:
  Schlozman appointed immediately.  Was there a replacement plan in place?
  And what about bringing lawsuits before elections

  AG:
  Head of civil rights stands by decision.
  [did not answer question about whether there was a replacememnt plan for graves; why let him off the hook]

  by drational on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:44:57 AM PDT

  •  she said answer in writing

    which makes sense, since we know he'll stonewall and lie.

    by khereva on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:45:48 AM PDT

•  Lungren - another flaming asshat

  by bumblebums on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:45:00 AM PDT

•  Lungren takes a page from Hatch.

  How many atty's?  Do you delegate?

  Time to make tea.

  by think blue on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:45:09 AM PDT

•  BIG DIFFERENCE

  between DELEGATION and ABDICATION...

  by Da Rock on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:45:37 AM PDT

•  i don't think i've heard a decent

  question from a democrat yet...none of them sound smart enought to be in congress...they all sound like they have a mouthful of maltomeal...where's sheldon whitehouse?

  by memofromturner on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:46:15 AM PDT

  •  Only Conyers first one

    since then it has been a BUST

    by Da Rock on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:47:04 AM PDT

  •  there needs to be majority counsel...

    ...on these committees to ask properly framed questions.  as there used to be in the watergate hearings, for example...

    by james risser on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:47:45 AM PDT

    •  I agree. The timed turns is diffusive

      Let's proceed to impeachment.

      by Compost On The Weeds on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:52:57 AM PDT

  •  ditto

    not exactly campaign material.
    gawd.

    by seesdifferent on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:32:32 AM PDT

•  "it would be okay" to conduct firings

  on a political basis.

  by khereva on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:46:16 AM PDT

•  Lungren the tool is back

  Establishing that AG delegates authority, snidely suggesting that the Dems don't seem to understand about delegation but he does because he used to do the same in his previous life.  The snotty tone is just not necessary you creep.

  by vigilant meerkat on