Liveblog - Senate Judiciary Committee v. Gonzo, Round 3 Diary #4

*List of admonitions:

Please do not rec this diary - the main Liveblog is the only one to rec.

No pictures - not a one and yes; this includes you.

Please reply to the first comment only with transcriptions.

New diaries usually pop up when the comments get to around 250.

  1.   Liveblog is here

  2.  shayera is here

  3.  gchaucher2 is here
  4.  Remembering Jello you found already

  5.  Fabian will be here once it's up

  6.  ???

and a big Gonzogate round of applause to Cedwyn for doing the admin on this.

Gonzogate continues, with further testimony by Abu himself:

June 29, 2007

NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING

DATE AND TIME CHANGE TO TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2007 AT 9:30 A.M. The hearing on "Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice" scheduled by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary will take place on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 216 of the Senate Hart Office Building, rather than the previously scheduled date of Wednesday, July 18, 2007.

By order of the Chairman

Witness List

Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on "Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice"

Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Hart Senate Office Building Room 216
10:00 a.m.

The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General of the United States
Department of Justice
Washington, DC

TESTIMONY

MEMBER STATEMENTS

*List of admonitions:

Please do not rec this diary - the main Liveblog is the only one to rec.

No pictures - not a one and yes; this includes you.

Please reply to the first comment only with transcriptions.

New diaries usually pop up when the comments get to around 250.

That's basically it.  So, who wants to play in the sandbox?

 

•  Transcripts are better than tips!

  So post 'em as replies to this

  by Remembering Jello on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:27:42 AM PDT

  •  Sessions

    S: about the changes on election laws.. sure some of them were needed but they are controversial.. concerned that you said you weren't aware.. who signed off

    G: would be deputy AG

    S: is that delegated to dep AG

    G: can't answer but would be happy to give you that answer

    S: think that's something the AG should do.. major policy

    G: yes and i believe that would be my resp but i just want to confirm that to you

    S: so many matters are in jurisdiction of DOJ.. enforcement of immigration depends on DOJ.. serious problem i heard about re: illegal aliens being re-arrested.. 27% of prison population is foreign born.. authorize the removal of people who commit a crime.. article by michelle malkin, mr adhan was convicted of ..relating to his involvment of kidnapping/murder.. tacoma wa.. previously convicted ..  law calls for anyone convicted of weapon offense is deportable but he wasn't deported and that resulted in other crimes.. another case.. illinois.. asking you about this whole policy.. have you taken a lead to see that this is carried out.. do you have any suggestions of statutory weakness

    G: it should be carried out.. not as good as it should be..  want to discuss with sec chertoff.. legisl may not be necessary but may turn out we'll need help from congress

    S: inmates in prisons won't be removed because they say they don't have the resources to detain and remove

    G: may be the case, want opportunity to speak to sec chertoff

    S: i hope you would because that's a major issue.. we pass laws in congress and then officials don't enforce them.. criminals in the US in large numbers.. large number of prisons don't particip in the removal program.. expand to all fed prisons

    G: that would make sense.. will see whaqt the status is and the challenges to implementing in all prisons

    S: pilot program in el paso where illegal entry being prosecuted before deported, significant reduction of people trying to enter in that part of the border

    G: requires cooperation of a judge, have had discussions with judges, would like to expand, depends on coop of judge

    S: well i'd hope they'd cooperate

    G: they will insist on certain processes and timetables.. can present some challenges

    S: think it works well and should be replicated.. seiing that laws get enforced.. will you pursue that

    G: yes, will certainly pursue that

    S: in april i asked for response about prosec of illegal immigr cases, you gave me a response to one but need answers... not yet recvd responses

    G: second one may req info from homeland secur but if we can provide the info we'll certainly do so

    by joanneleon on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:31:07 AM PDT

  •  Schumer

    S:  you said in testimony that there was no disagreement on the program, then Comey comes and talks about dissent..  on 6/5, you said Comey testified about the program the president confirmed.   this is constant - you constantly make statements that are clear you are deceiving and then come back and say you corrected the record.  How can we trust you - you constantly change the story to fit your needs.

    Before that you were alluding to the 5/17 letter - there was one program,TSP, then other activities...

    In all due respect, you said it was clarified with a reporter, then said you don't know what he said.  how can you go on being AG when you are bobbing and ducking the committee.  (
    ---
    interrputed)
    -----
    you said it was a spokesperson, how do you clarify - it looks like you deceived us.  you want to be AG, you should clarify, not leave to a spokesperson.

    AG:  Comey - this is another program.

    S:  that does not clarify.   do you say that Comey didn't disagree with the program

    AG:  the one he testified about was about another program.

    S:  oh no...we have to pursue this...

    Leahy:  this is significant.  did you (say anything to others - Specter???)

    AG:  (this is clarified)

    L:  I'm going to ask for a review of the transcript.  there is a discrepancy in sworn testimony here.

    by Ellicatt on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:43:11 AM PDT

  •  Schumer getting down to the real nitty gritty

    partial transcript, omitting AGAG's BS responses in between

    Schumer: You just admitted there was one program the president confirmed in December.  Are you backing off that now?

    AGAG:  The persident confirmed one set of intelligence activities.

    Schumer: I think this shows as clear as can be that you're not being clear with this committee--yhat you're deceiving us.  [first you testify] there has not been any disagreement about the president the program has confirmed.  Then Comey comes and says there was not mild dissent, but dissent that shook the Justice Dept. to the rafters.

    You constantly make statements that are clear on their face that you are deceiving the committee.  How can we trust your leadership when [in talking about] basic facts that have been in the spotlight you constantly change your story to wiggle out of being caught in your mistruths!

    How can you say that you should stay on as AG when we have exercises like this, bobbing and ducking and weaving to avoid the fact that you deceived this committee!

    If you want to be AG you should be able to clarify it yourself and not leave it to a spokesperson.

    Mr. Chairman we have to pursue this.  I've never heard anything quite like this.

    Leahy:  You say you clarified the record with a reporter.  Did you ever offer such a clarification to either Senator Specter or myself?

    There's a discrepancy here in sworn testimony.  We have to determine who is telling the truth and who is not.

    wow, wow, and muthafrakkin WOW!!!

    by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:44:28 AM PDT

  •  Schumer D-NY *important exchange

    This is a critical segment.  When official transcripts available, do go back and read this exchange

    S: pick up where sen specter left off about tsp program.. take it there was just one program the pres

    G: yes he confirmed one program

    S: you referred to the one pgm in 2005.  here's what you said in feb 2006: there has not been any serious problems.. no concerns about this pgm.. this was before comey came to testify, now of course we know tht virtually the entire leadership was prepared to resign.. doesn't get more serious.. what program was that about?  it was precisely the program you said there was no problem with.. so please help us understqand how you didn't mislead the committee.. i asked you was there dissent and you said no.. now you say there was dissent over otehr intel activities..

    G: i stand by what i said to the committee, would like to look at the press conf statements

    S: we'll bring them up to you right now [murmurs from crowd]  these are your words sir, right?  this was a public

    G: i'm told that what i hear.. i did mispeak

    S: you did mispeak, what reporter

    G: wash post [voice shaking]

    S: you said there was just one program, yes or no

    G: the pres confirmed one set of intel ...

    S: i think this shows that you're not being straightforward, deceiving us.. you said there has not been any disagreement about the pgm the pres confirmed.. then comey comes and says there was dissent that shook the rafters

    G: i clarified my statement on june 5, comey was talking about intel

    S: you constantly make statements that deceive, then you go back and say you've corrected your record.. you change the story to fit your needs to wiggle out of being caught telling mistruths.. before that you were alluding in letter may 17 you said there was this program tsp and then there were otehr intel activities

    ....

    S: i'll let you speak but this is serious, you're getting right close to the edge right here

    saying there are other

    G: clarified with reporter

    S: what did you say

    G: didn't speak to the reporter

    S: oh you did not?

    S: you're saying it was clarif w/ reporter but you didn't even talk to him.. how can you stay on as AG.. you're hanging your hat on the fact that you clarified but now say it was a spokesman.. what did you say

    G: don't know, will get back to you

    S: you wanna be AG you should be able to clarify yourelf right now and not leave it to a spokesperson

    G: mr comey says it was about other intel activities

    S: that's not what mr comey says

    [gonzales' voice shaky]
    G: that's how i would clarify it

    S: are you saying comey didn't disagree with the progrem

    G: the disagreement comey had was about other intel

    S: oh no, mr chairman we have to pursue this

    L:  you say you made a clarif w/ reporter.. this is so important.. did you clarif with specter or myself

    G: i think my statements were accurate.. press statements were not but i clarified it

    L:  going to ask for a review of transcript if there's a discrepancy we're going to have to ask who's telling the truth

    by joanneleon on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:45:18 AM PDT

  •  Durbin's money quote on torture

    that's the kind of ambiguity that allows people to conclude you personally and this administration are trying to leave an opening in the door for the US to engage in conduct that we condemn around the world.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:50:41 AM PDT

  •  Durbin D-IL

    D: you have pushed the torture issue beyond where courts would take it.. would it be legal for a foreign govt to subject a US citizen to apply any of these techniques

    G: would it be legal under their laws, what law are you talking about.. we would be obligated...

    D: do you believe these would be beyond the law if they were used against a US citizen

    G: to answer the question, would be beyond

    D: you recuse yourself.. i'm asking you a general queswtion.. if you won't answer you create an ambiguity and invites those who take american detainees to think they can go further

    G: military commissions act, violations of pta, cruel and human, then there are prohibitive actions that would go against pres order.. depends on cae

    D: whether by signing statements or memos, leaves an opening... last quest.l latest intel suggests AQ is stronger that OBL still at large and that guantanamo symbol around the world

    G: not for lack of trying by govt.. indiv have been given process.. we're slugging it out in the court.. would like to bring all these indiv to justice.. they have the opport and means to go to court

    by joanneleon on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:51:16 AM PDT

  •  Feingold

    Feingold

    F: I will be shortly introducing censure against pres.. you have played a central role.. like to give you opport to defend yourself.. you say your testimony is accurate.. i've had the opportunity to review classified.. intend to send you a classified letter telling you why i believe your testim was misleading..how will you deal with this publicly

    G: i would endeavor to do this.. find your statement surprising

    F: publicly set this straight.. appalled by your efforts to shift resp to AG ashcroft.. don't know why we should trust you.. gang of 8 briefing was a violation of nat sec act.. you are responsible for those actions.. at your confirm hearing i asked you if pres had auth unwarr wiretapping.. you knew about it.. could have spoken to me about it but you did not.. said there were no problems but you knew there were.. misleading at best.. in every case you came up with some convoluted theory why your statements were accuraqtge.. shouldn't AG meet high standards

    G: ag of US should try to meet those stds and i've tried to

    F: proposal to modernize FISA yet you refuse to share info about justif for illegal wiretapping.. would grant blanket immunity to indiv and org who participate.. how can you come to congr with this with a straight face

    G: we have provided briefings to intel comm, went to companies for help to try to help this country.. think it's appropr to ask congr for help

    F: but we don't even know what it's for...

    ...

    F: priv entities failing to follow law, is that an important part of our priv law

    G: if i understand corr, yes

    by joanneleon on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:58:25 AM PDT

  •  Feingold: Do you agree

    that the potential liability of private entities is an important part of enforcement of our privacy laws.

    A. Yes.

    Kennedy: July 2007 the order on torture was released.

    Q. did you produce any comments or memoranda about the order? Can you produce them?

    A. I’ll ask my daddies.

    Q. Questions about specific torture activities which are prohibited. Sexually indecent acts are prohibited. Threatening with sexual mutilation is prohibited. Acts intended to denigrate religious practices. If those are prohibited, why aren’t the other activities mentioned, dogs, water boarding etc. also prohibited.

    A. Certain activities are beyond the pale, which everyone agrees they should be prohibited. Others I can’t comment about.

    Q. So these other activities aren’t sufficient to prohibit.

    A. Other activities will be determined by the Executive order and by the CIA director.

    by protectedmode on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:03:16 AM PDT

  •  Kennedy

    K:  torture; as you are aware, the exec. order has been published 7/20/07.  did the dept. review the order

    AG; yes, as a matter of custom

    K:  document assessing the legality of the order?

    AG; I can't tell you whether we provided a legal document

    K:  or comments?  can you make those available to the committee

    AG:  I'll take it back and see what we can do

    K:  in the document, paragraph E, it mentions certain that specified violations - outrageous acts of abuse - beyond the bounds of human decency.  It prohibits certain activities.  sexual or sexual indecent acts for humiliation; forcing acts or posing is prohibited.  using for human shields; denigrating for religious purposes.  if those are prohibited, why are you unwilling to prohibit (waterboarding, dogs, mock executions)?

    AG: there are certain activities beyond the pale and should be prohibited.  the  pres. supported those that are defined.  other activities are no so clear and I cant' discuss in a public session.

    K: what you are saying is that these acts mentioned in the exec. order are prohibited, but the other activities are not.  they don't rise to the point where there aren't prohibited

    AG: I'm not saying they are not.. these activities are beyond the pale and all agree (they should be prohibited).  other activities will be reviewed.

    K:  Adm. McConnell on MTP - said he would not comment.  is the threat a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

    AG:  the president says we don't torture...

    K:  the point mentioned by the 5 items; Adm. McConnell said he won't comment - is that extreme psychological harm.  you won't indicate its off the table - isn't this a violation of the Geneva Conv?  I'll go to another topic.

    the diplomats received political briefings, done in the Peace Corps.  we've had 15 fed. agencies subjected to Rove's political briefings, political contests.  according to the Post, diplomats have been given briefings of dems to be targeted in '08.  Rove gave briefings to any members of the DOJ?

    AG: I don't believe so

    K: These briefings in the P.C. which targeted dems - is that a violation of the Hatch act?

    AG: I don't know, haven't studied the article.  we'll look to see if there is something there.

    K:  in these briefings on gov property -

    AG: let me try to get more information about it; I don't know anything about it.

    K:  civil rights div in the DOJ - Kim who was here asked about voting discrimination.  Bush admin has filed 2 cases took until 2006 to file these.  Delay's Texas redistricting and Georgia - dramatically less than the previous administration.,

    AG:  i believe we have a problem and obligation to address it.  testimony of Norton - allegation across the border is down.  we talked about the number of cases.  person who testified is mistaken and wrong.  successes of the civil rights division.

    by Ellicatt on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:09:41 AM PDT

  •  Leahy: Were you aware

    of Monica’s political vetting of career appointees?

    A. It would have upset me if I did. I don’t recall knowing.

    Q. Do you ever consider political factors in the selection of careerists?

    A. Do I? No.

    by protectedmode on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:10:05 AM PDT

•  And we'll say snarky things down here n/t

  by Remembering Jello on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:28:09 AM PDT

  •  General snark

    Or, if you prefer, Attorney General snark.

    by MKinTN on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:29:09 AM PDT

  •  Can you update your diary

    with the list of diarists from the Mothership?

    by Marcus Tullius on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:56:57 AM PDT

  •  I haven't heard so many platitudes since

    the first season of "Smallville."

    by Omen on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:58:54 AM PDT

•  Second!

  by reef the dog on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:28:35 AM PDT

•  Thank Senator Whitehouse!

  Call him here: 202-224-2921

  by Marcus Tullius on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:29:35 AM PDT

•  Thanks, RJ.

  Do you think you could put up #4 in your title?  Just to let other folks not already on know where we are.  Thanks.

  by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:30:14 AM PDT

  •  Done

    by Remembering Jello on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:32:56 AM PDT

•  Sessions started out OK

  Criticizing Gonzales for not knowing who changed the Voting prosecution redbook.

  Then spiraled into the gutter quoting Michele Malkin on criminal Illegal aliens.

  Gads.

  by drational on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:30:20 AM PDT

  •  Now we're talking about crack?

    this seems like a great diversion

    by friendlyfire on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:31:19 AM PDT

    •  Oh, crack is really not such

      a great diversion. Bourbon is much better.

      by aggressiveprogressive on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:32:29 AM PDT

    •  hate to admit it, but it's an important issue...

      But maybe we should talk about it later.

      Still, he's right.  The punishments are extremely disproportionate, and for the reasons they state.

      by MrFakeName on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:32:40 AM PDT

    •  It seems difficult for the republicans...

      to stick to the issue at hand.  One of them earlier brought up the referee scandal in the NBA.  I can't for the life of me figure out what that had to do with anything.  I guess it beats talking about all the criminals in your own party if you're a republican.

      by cometman on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:33:28 AM PDT

•  Go Schumer!

  by BigiMac on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:32:20 AM PDT

•  Schumer up next

  Wheeeeeeee!

  We've heard from all of the Repugs who showed up.  Thank god.

  by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:32:23 AM PDT

•  Schumer brings the visuals.

  Eat your words, Gonzo.

  by canoeist on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:32:35 AM PDT

•  Schumer up

  by friendlyfire on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:32:37 AM PDT

•  OK

  I had to step out for a few minutes.  Have we, or have we not, eliminated the scourge of internet gambling?

  by reef the dog on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:32:49 AM PDT

  •  Yup Resolved that - now we are onto crack cocaine

    by ETinKC on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:33:57 AM PDT

  •  Afraid not

    Too many people wagering on whether Gonzales finally gets KOed today. ;-)

    by sardonyx on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:35:25 AM PDT

•  Charts about lies

  Niiiiice
  Perjury illustrated

  by drational on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:32:55 AM PDT

  •  

    Perjury illustrated

    I wonder if they do a swimsuit edition.

    by Remembering Jello on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:34:26 AM PDT

    •  Only if it's up the river. n/t

      by sardonyx on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:35:56 AM PDT

    •  With THESE guys? God, I hope not!

      by caseynm on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:52:12 AM PDT

  •  I used to read Perjury Illustrated, but...

    their fact checkers were TERRIBLE.

    by MrFakeName on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:34:42 AM PDT

  •  "Perjury Illustrated"

    AG is at the top of the masthead.  I'll pass on the swimsuit issue....

    by MKinTN on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:34:54 AM PDT

•  Schumer up at bat! GET HIM!!

  by Boston to Salem on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:33:09 AM PDT

•  No More Republicans ?!??!?!

  When will I have time to Pee then?

  by ETinKC on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:33:21 AM PDT

•  Ouch.

  All the Republicans have been heard from.  The rest of the day will be a very public lashing of AGAG by the Committee.

  Sweet.

  by Marcus Tullius on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:33:29 AM PDT

•  Haaaahaaaa

  Schumer throwing Gonzo's words back at him re: intel program.

  by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:34:22 AM PDT

  •  Gonzo looks a little

    shook up at the idea of his public statement being there in front of the room.

    by aggressiveprogressive on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:36:01 AM PDT

•  Schumer:

  AGAG testified there was no serious dissent about spying programs, then Comey came along, mass resignations threatened. How can both be true?

  by MyBrainWorks on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:34:31 AM PDT

  •  Abu is toast... nt

    by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:18:50 AM PDT

•  I Cannot Comment On The Ongoing Controversy, I

  created, cause I recused myself.

  by leonard145b on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:34:40 AM PDT

•  Senator Schumer, sir?

  I love you. And BECAUSE I love you, I want to talk to you about the comb-over.

  Lisa :)

  by Boston to Salem on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:34:40 AM PDT

•  Chuck's Got Charts! Tee-hee!

  Gonzo's "zero recall" may not work here...he's going to have to deny the context here.

  by Omen on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:34:47 AM PDT

•  Schumer pushing perjury....

  asking Gonzales about differences in testimonys... Warning Will Robinson

  Explain how you didn't "mislead " us...
  schumer shows proof of gonzos lies...

  Gonzales getting snotty

  by OneCrankyDom on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:34:58 AM PDT

  •  did you hear

    the nervous fear in gonzo's voice when Schumer said, "We'll put it up for you now"
    and Gonzo said, "Good!"

    I jumped out of my chair to run in and see the tv in the other room.

    Schumer got to him bigtime!

    by enough already on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:38:29 AM PDT

•  Gonzo says

  Good!  Bahahahaha!

  by enough already on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:35:27 AM PDT

•  Gonzo testy

  Were gonna bring your words up to you:

  "GOOD!!!"

  by drational on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:35:40 AM PDT

•  He's talking to his lawyers:

  "Fuck! he's got me, what do I say? Help!"

  by Omen on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:35:43 AM PDT

•  Dancing around

  his own response -- I'd like to see what I said at the press conference.  Oh, good, here's your words.  Schumer is loaded for bear.

  by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:35:49 AM PDT

•  "we're goint to bring this up for you right now"

  gonzo:  "good"

  he is soooo pissy!

  by Liveblog on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:35:59 AM PDT

•  AG - I'm told that I did misspeak.

  I'm told... sheesh.

  by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:36:06 AM PDT

  •  yeah; see, he didn't know it until now. n/t

    by Omen on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:37:41 AM PDT

•  Hopefully, This Chart Will Be Used To Impeach!

  Perjury proved!

  by leonard145b on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:36:12 AM PDT

•  Gonzo chuckles

  Like it's all a joke.  Hahahahaha, so funny.  Fucktard.  

  by alou73 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:36:18 AM PDT

  •  very inappropriate response

    considering the circumstances, very telling too I would think, would any shrinks here like to comment on that?

    by Jeffersonian Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:53:04 PM PDT

•  Here we go - dancing with the stars

  by BigiMac on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:36:37 AM PDT

•  "President confirmed existence of one set of

  intelligence activities" does not equal "President authorized only one set of intelligence activities."

  He's trying desperately to hide the existence of other such activities, I strongly suspect.

  by lysias on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:36:52 AM PDT

  •  It reminds me of his testimony re: wiretapping

    He kept saying "this particular program" or "the program I am addressing today" or similar terms.  Cute.

    by WisVoter on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:38:39 AM PDT

•  How can you

  misspeak about the number of intel programs.  He said he corrected himself with WaPo -- probably after someone clued him in on the perjury issue.

  by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:36:53 AM PDT

•  I have a feeling

  that AGAG is about to develop " food poisoning"

  by Remembering Jello on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:36:57 AM PDT

•  Schumer calls Gonzo a Liar.

  "You are not being straightforward. You are deceiving us"

  Lisa

  by Boston to Salem on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:37:05 AM PDT

•  Senator Schumer....

  You ROCK!!!!

  by tshaw1 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:37:10 AM PDT

•  Shumer vs. Gonzo.

  Shumer is dropping the hammer.  These confrontations sometimes make me feel so uneasy that I can barely stand to watch.  But... I... Must...

  by kN3eLb4Z0d on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:37:16 AM PDT

  •  Don't be uneasy... the truth should set one free.

    But in Gonzo's case, the truth further's the cause of justice and clears the conscience.  Let the jury decide, Gonzo.

    by Habanero on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:23:26 AM PDT

    •  The truth?

      The truth should send Gonzo to the slammer for life!

      by TX Freethinker on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:22:01 AM PDT

      •  That would be furthering the cause of justice. :)

        IMHO

        by Habanero on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:25:26 AM PDT

•  He did misspeak and clarified two days later.

  Of course it's the Washington Post.  I love Schumer he is not going to let up on this.  You mislead congress.

  by KatHart on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:37:24 AM PDT

  •  Did anyone write down that citation?

    Which reporter, and it was the Post?

    by MrFakeName on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:38:50 AM PDT

•  Clear that you're deceiving the committee

  How can we trust your leadership???

  by TampaProgressive on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:37:25 AM PDT

•  Gonzales is looking all around

  His head is turning from side to side.

  Now he is talking to people behind him.

  And now the smirk appears. he is fidgeting. Moves his hands out front on the desk. Now folds his arms first right over left, then switches them left over right. Moves microphone. Blinks, folds hands together and taps them ....while Schumer nails him.

  by cassidy3 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:37:51 AM PDT

  •  He knows he's lying, and he knows Schumer

    knows...
    :)

    by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:25:08 AM PDT

•  Schumer:

  AG testified that there was not any disagreement.

  Then Comey appears and says that there was huge disagreement.

  This is constant Sir with all due respect to you... how can we trust your leadership when you constantly change the story to wiggle out of telling mistruths.

  Schumer is on fire!

  by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:38:05 AM PDT

•  Close to the edge??? he jumped the shark

  months ago

  by BigiMac on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:38:10 AM PDT

  •  was is because of the clip show

    or because of his Very Special Episode?

    by Omen on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:39:29 AM PDT

•  New word by Schumer ? "Mistruths" /nt

  by murphy on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:38:17 AM PDT

  •  Closer and closer to "lies"

    Woo hoo....go Schumer!

    Saving the 'lies' for the perjury charges!

    by SallyCat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:46:45 AM PDT

•  I generally don't like Schumer

  but damn he's real good at getting to the bottom of things.

  by Ex Real Republican on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:38:31 AM PDT

  •  Why don't you like him?

    I for one have a higher opinion of the examination skills of Senators Leahy and Schumer, not to disparage the skills of the others present at the session.

    by Habanero on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:27:47 AM PDT

•  This is serious

  Cause you're getting right close to the EDGE, right here

  by TampaProgressive on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:38:32 AM PDT

•  Gettin close to the edge

  right here.

  by drational on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:38:43 AM PDT

•  Q. The President confirmed just one

  program in 2005

  A. Just one program.

  Q. (Chart of Gonzo earlier testimony) there was no dissent. You said this before Comey’s testimony. We now know the senior leadership of DOJ was will ing to resign over this program.

  How was your answer not misleading. (He’s filibustering. Shut up and Let Gonzo answer!!! )

  A. I stand by what I said to the Committee. I’d like to look at the press conference question and response.

  Q. We’ll show you now. (He should focus on the perjury, not public lies)

  A. I’m told I did misspeak at the press conference, but I went back and corrected it to the WP reporter two days later.

  Q. You admitted there was just one program the President approved.

  A. There was a set of..

  Q. One or more.

  A. This shows you are deceiving us. (LET HIM ANSWER, HE’LL HANG HIMSELF!!!)

  Q. Mr. Comey was talking about a disagreement about other activities.

  A. How can we trust you when the your answers to basic facts about serious questions change as they suit you.

  by protectedmode on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:38:48 AM PDT

  •  Transcripts up top please

    and thank you!

    by Remembering Jello on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:40:03 AM PDT

    •  Why?

      I think it is much harder to read the comments in context if the trancriptions aren't appearing throughout.  One big reason is that people often forget to note which senator is questioning or what they are commenting on.

      Just my 2 cents.

      by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:45:34 AM PDT

      •  I agree....down thread in order of questioning

        when they are up top I get confused on the order of the Senators.

        by SallyCat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:47:33 AM PDT

        •  Just sticking with current convention

          I think it's supposed to make it easier for folks to check in from work?

          by Remembering Jello on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:03:55 AM PDT

•  this is a fuckin joke....

  someone get the hook...

  by OneCrankyDom on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:39:24 AM PDT

  •  I think Schumer

    buried the hook in Gonzo's neck.

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:40:15 AM PDT

•  Called Schumer's office, too.

  2 minutes hold time, staffer sounded very pleased with things, very upbeat.

  His number: 202-224-6542

  by Marcus Tullius on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:39:38 AM PDT

•  Translation time

  You lyin' SOB!!!

  by Da Rock on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:39:42 AM PDT

•  Shumer's Moving In...For the Kill...

  "weaving and bobbing..."

  Go git'em Chuck!!!

  by TheManWithNoPoint on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:39:57 AM PDT

  •  Remember THIS MOMENT FOLKS!!!

    this is where the rubber met the road...kill...

    by TheManWithNoPoint on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:41:33 AM PDT

  •  Down goes GONZO! Down goes GONZO!

    by deepsouthdoug on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:50:26 AM PDT

•  asdf

  Something tells me that reporter's cell phone is ringing.....

  Lisa

  by Boston to Salem on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:39:58 AM PDT

•  If you want to be Attorney General