Liveblog VI: SJC Skewering AG AG

UPDATE [2007-07-24 13:28 ET]  Adjourned.

Welcome to more lies, evasions, obfuscations, incompetence, misdirection and other less than truthful utterances by The Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice, Alberto Gonzales.

C-SPAN 3 video link

The carnage continues below the fold...

<div>
This is diary #6, the previous diaries are:

Mothership LiveBlog
Liveblog 2   shayera
Liveblog 3   gchaucer2
Liveblog 4   Remembering Jello
Liveblog 5   Fabian
Liveblog 6   MKinTN (you are here!)

Wrap-up and postscripts:
Liveblog 7    joanneleon

RULES!

No pictures, images, animations, videos, avatars or so on.  They slow things down.  No exceptions!

Do not recommend this diary.  Feel free to recommend the first LiveBlog diary to keep it on the rec list.

Do tip the diarists and all those whose flying fingers provide us with transcription.

Transcription comments please reply to the first comment.

Commentary and opinion please reply to the second comment.

•  Tips 'n' Transcripts

  Here

  by MKinTN on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:34:10 AM PDT

  •  Whitehouse: I have the same

    perception as Feingold, if there is a kernel of truth in your testimony the path to that truth is so convoluted that I have no choice to believe that you intended to deceive us. Count two of us who feel that way, take it seriously.

    Q. A context question. If you want an independent DOJ, protected from political influence. What do you think would be the greatest risk to political influence to the Department? The Boy Scouts. Isn’t the WH the #1 concern as the source of improper political influence?

    A. Yes, it would be the WH.

    Q. In response to that concern AG Reno, at the direction of Hatch, drafted a letter outlining the proper lines of communication between the WH and DOJ. (Now there are hundreds of avenues between the two). You’ve testified that this is important, that you are concerned about the level of contact, and that it be through appropriate channels.

    Q. Ashcroft set forth standards, and permitted staffers allowed to communicate. You expanded it further. There is an asterisk which allows the Office of the Vice President to communicate in an identical way as the WH.

    Why is the VP treated as the EOP? What doe the VP have to do with prosecution?

    A.  Good question. I’ll have to find out.

    Q. The VP is now allowed communication into ongoing criminal

    A. I’m troubled by this. I don’t know that it’s happened (wink, wink,)

    Q. You say you want to clean up the DOJ. But your signature is on this memo, how do you have credibility.

    A. We have been looking at this issue, it concerns me. As for this memo, it concerns me if it encourages inappropriate communication we’ll have to take a look at it.

    Q. It is very difficult to take seriously your promises to restore the DOJ.

    by protectedmode on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:37:23 AM PDT

  •  whitehouse

    
    "it appears to a lot of people, sir, that you are the problem."

    by Liveblog on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:40:07 AM PDT

  •  Whitehouse: Reads Letter

    to the Editor from Denver which eviscerates Gonzo and DOJ.  Whitehouse then lists the gone and fired from DOJ.

    A. I disagree. Moral is good. Your list of those who left includes Battle, who was going to leave anyway, so it’s not fair to include him.  Babble, wobble, dance...

    by protectedmode on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:40:35 AM PDT

  •  Whitehouse

    W: agree with the senator.. no choice but to think you misled us..you may act like he's behaving in a crazy way but at least count two of us

    W: dept that is protected from improper pol influence.. what do you think would be the locus most presenting that risk

    G: don't understand question

    W: if you're setting up barriers to prot from improper influ.. boy scouts not a risk right?  isn't WH number one locus, point of concern

    G: obv that would be cert a key point of concern.. prob the key of concern

    W: in response, remind you the 1994 letter reno to cutler, letter announced..believed it was reduced to writing at behest of hatch.. pol commun betw DOJ and WH should involve only the WH counsel of dep counsel...  seven people.. you seemed to agree i had a legit concern... saw the graph.. appropr channels.. you said i agree with you.. think the safeguards are important then you said i am concerned that commun occur w/in appropr channels

    G: yes

    W: i then showed you the letter ashcroft prepared.. disc about ongoing crim and investig matters.. you've had time to think about this.. indic desire to clean up the mess at the dept.. to your attent the may 4 2006 memo subseq to ashcroft memo... [getting him a copy]  here's what concerns me.. ashcroft memo at end there is parag under asterisks that changes the whole memo before it... communic w/ pres/ vp/ various others, and says staff members can communic.. and so forth.. i took the pos that it was pretty much kicking down and import door... other memo concern me even more.. asterisk footnote says for convenience office of vice pres referred to as OVP ... will apply in parallel with OVP.. what on earth business does the VP have wrp ongoing crim matters

    G: i'd say that's a good question

    [audience laughter]

    W: final paragr that undercuts everything.. here you can see the diff .. almost identical to prev memo .. AG may commun with pres, vp, you add, their chiefs of staff, counsel to pres ... and counsel to vp.. someone took trouble to add counsel to vp

    G: don't know that in fact it happened

    w: part of what we do is prevent things from happ

    G: on it's face i'm troubled by this

    W: let me finish.. futher on down.. what was staff of pres has become staff of vp and entire office of mgmt of budget has been thrown in.. you come here today with highly diminished credibility, asserting that you want to restore the DOJ and yet here where you could do something about it, nothing has been done.. we agree that the cxn w/ WH.. how in the light of all those facts can I take you serious that you'll clean up..

    G: well i have taken several steps.. have directed my staff.. went to former leader of ashcroft staff about basis for change.. wrt this memo frankly i'd have to look at it.. ongoing investig.. something we have to rethink

    w: ch leahy and i have legisl that restricts the dept back to the orig.. hope you'll consider that and support it.. it is very difficult to take seriously your promises to restore the DOJ.. there are a lot of people who love it.. people i used to work with.. a lot of concern.. seven usas or more dismissed, others gone.. elston gone, samston, battle, gone.  in addition to hearing it wherever I go you get the op ed in denver post.. never been as ashamed of the DOJ as i am now, inapprop unethical.. never before seen such disrepect for both law and ethics.. subjects me to subst risk of reprisal to extr ruthless people who have taken action in the past.. some things must be said whatever the risk.. as you know this is not an isolated feeling... appears that you sir are the problem

    G: senator, i understand that statement. i agree.  I think morale in the dept is good if you look at the output. clearly the usatty problem has not helped morale.  we have taken steps.. in some ways wrt usatty it's a good thing.. people leaving is a good thing.. i am workng as hard as i can with this comm making changes... the reason i wouldn't speak about fisa is because i'm working for the people of this country who are concerned about crime, terror, predators...

    by joanneleon on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:41:05 AM PDT

  •  Cardin

    C:  back to the concern about selected release of information.  today you released info about the congressional advice to you on itel. briefing.  this is classified info that can be released by the president; information by senators and (reps).  was the conscientious decision made by the WH?

    AG:  no approval by the WH; listen - people have made (judgments about my visit to the hospital)

    C:  I agree, but we should have all information for an independent review.

    AG;  that's a decision to be made by the WH.

    C:  (That's what we hear - selected information - Taylor told us the same thing - exec. priv.) she doesn't think its helpful to give us subjective information for us to (judge).  we'll get the information.  we're trying to find the details about the hospital visit.  you give us some information (but not all).  I'd think the AG of the US would give us the details.

    AG:  it was my intent that the committee had a more detailed explanation. ... the WH was advised that this is what I'd be talking about, didn't get approval, but they knew this is what I was going to say.

    (now a brief recess)

    by Ellicatt on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:44:00 AM PDT

  •  A brief recess

    And Abu G scurries away like a frightened cockroach.  Shouts of "resign" and "you are an embarrassment" follow him out the door along with the klieg lights and video cams.

    by litigatormom on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:45:51 AM PDT

  •  Schumer: When you went

    to Ashcroft’s bed, did you know power had been transferred to Comey.

    A. I think it was in the papers. There is no governing legal principle that would have prevented Ashcroft from making the decision.

    Q. What was your understanding of Ashcroft’s authority?

    A. My understanding was that Comey would make the decision.

    Q. When you went to the hospital what did you think Ashcroft’s condition was.

    A. Did you know visitors were barred by Ashcroft’s wife?

    Q. I’ve subsequently learned.

    A. Do you have documents of the transfer of power from Ashcroft to Comey?

    Q. Someone at the WH may have had them.

    A. Wouldn’t the Office of Counsel have them?

    Q. Did you discuss classified information in front of Mrs. Ashcroft who did not have clearance?

    A. Ashcrooft did all the talking, I don’t think he did anything wrong.

    Q. Did the President ask you to go?

    A. We were there on his behalf.

    Q. Did he ask you to go?

    A. Why can’t you answer?

    Q. You haven’t claimed privilege. Why won’t you answer?

    A. Why.

    Q. It relates to activity related to my job at the WH.

    A. I’ll take the question back to my daddies, if they let me I’ll answer.

    by protectedmode on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:59:08 AM PDT

  •  Leahy

    Schumer has asked for a little more time, then we will conclude the hearing.

    Schumer: Did you know when you went to the hospital that power had been transferred to Comey.

    AG: I think so, but even assuming that the transfer occurred, there is no governing principle of law that says if Ashcroft felt better, he couldn't make a decision.

    (In other words, if we could get him to think he felt better, we would try to get him to overrule Comey.)
    Schumer: Who was making the decision?

    AG: My understanding was that Comey was making decision.

    Schumer: What did you understand Ashcroft's condition to be?  Did you know all visitors had been barred by his wife because he was so ill?

    AG: I don't think I knew that, I found out later that she was being very careful.

    Schumer: Do you have documents in your possession reflecting the transfer of power?

    AG: I do now. I don't know whether I had them then.

    CS: Wouldn't WH counsel have had them?

    AG: Probably, I have no recollection.

    CS: Talk about classified recolleciton?

    AG: Don't think so, Ashcroft did most of the talking.

    AG: We went to the hospital on behalf of the president of the US.

    CS: not my question, who sent you, why can't you answer?

    AG: All I can say is that we were there on behalf of the president of the US.  

    CS: Why are you refusing to answer the question.

    AG: It relates to activities that existed in the WH?

    CS: Did VP send you?

    AG: We were there on behalf of the president. I will go back and see whether I can say more. (Like that will happen?)

    CS: Did any member of Gang of 8 send you?

    AG: No, I don't even know whether I told them we were going?

    CS: Did Gang of 8 know that top DoJ people were threatening to resign?

    AG: I don't know whether that is true, but I don't think we discussed that, but they knew that Comey was opposed, and we were going to get authority for emergency legislation.  They understood that there was serious dissent.

    CS: But you testified that there was NO serious dissent.

    AG: The dissent was about other intel activities, it was not aobut the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

    CS: But you said you were talking to Gang of 8 about the need for emergency legislation about TSP. So you are back in the conundrum.

    You said they knew there was dissent.  Then you testified that there was no dissent.  You said there was only one program.  Would Gang of 8 say the same thing?

    AG: I dont know what Gang of 8 would say.

    CS: Was discussion with Gang of 8 about other intel actitivities?

    AG: About "other" activities.  

    CS: If you say "other," you are suggesting it was not about TSP.  Was it about TSP, yes or no.

    AG: It was about other intel activities. (Refuses to say yes or no.  He is trying to give "technically accurate" information.)

    CS: Did you tell Gang of 8 that you were asking to authorize emergency legislation that DAG said it was not legal?

    AG: I assume they understood that.  (But he just said they knew there was dissent?  So how could they not know.)

    CS: MENTIONS FITZ, BUT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT OF THE QUESTION.  WAS IT ABOUT APPOINTING FITZ AS SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, OR BRINGING HIM HERE AS A WITNESS?

    Specter: Consult about functioning of DoJ. Get objective view.  

    by litigatormom on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:04:10 AM PDT

    •  i think one of the fired AGs

      was Fitzpatrick...it got me, too.

      by Liveblog on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:09:43 AM PDT

    •  We need to get a transcript of the actual

      testimony, fast.  He was bobbing and weaving so fast that I can't quite how many times he contradicted himself.  But he has contradicted Comey, and I presume Ashcroft, quite clearly, and irretrievably.

      He is obviously trying to distinguish the TSP that had been previously authorized from whatever they were trying to get Ashcroft and Comey to sign off on.  That's his whole strategy.  

      One of the many things that makes no sense, however, is why they simply wouldn't get Comey to reauthorize whatever Ashcroft had signed off on before, and then try afterwards to convince them to approve the "other intel activities."  What was the emergency?  Why were they meeting with the Gang of 8 on an emergency basis about possible emergency legislation if it was about "other intel activities"?  What was the urgency?

      What it sounds like, to me, is that the DoJ discovered that the TSP involved something that they had not previously been aware of. That they felt they'd been lied to.  But my head is spinning so fast I can't be sure.

      by litigatormom on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:11:10 AM PDT

      •  Question: What's the "Gang of 8?" n/t

        by WisVoter on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:14:55 AM PDT

        •  A group of Congress members who get

          let in on part of an administration secret with the provision that they never let on that they know anything.  Guilt by association.  Now Gonzales can blame stuff on them and they can't say what really happened.

          by Friend of the court on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:36:11 AM PDT

        •  House and Senate majority and minority

          leaders, majority and minority leaders of intel committees in both houses.

          Gang of 8 didn't send Abu G and Card to Ashcroft's sick room.  So all of Abu G's blabbering about how Mueller might not have been ordered to keep Abu G and Card from meeting with Ashcroft alone if Mueller had known about the Gang of 8 meeting -- what is the relevance of that?

          CHEWBACCA, CHEWBACCA, CHEWBACCA!!!!

          by litigatormom on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:38:32 AM PDT

  •  specter

    i would ask you to take a close look at the functioning of your depatment...consensus seems to be the morale is at an all-time low.

    ...and then i ask you take a look at how the dept. is functioning generally...it appears to me, candidly,...the department is dysfunctional.

    ...oxycontin case...constitutes malice; that's criminal conduct.

    by Liveblog on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:07:23 AM PDT

  •  Leahy

    the tragic thing here...is the undermining of the good work the people of the Justice Dept does.  they work every day to uncover crime.  in my years, the admiration that I have for them. worked with them for decades since, the career people.  never had anyone say to me one way or another their political leanings.  you say morale is good, it is not.  you come here seeking our trust, frankly, you've lost mine.  this is something I've never said to any cabinet member before, even ones I've disagreed with.  the hardworking members of the dept. deserve better.  its hard to restore people's faith.  any prosecutor will tell you when they go to court they carry the credibility of their office with them.  

    our committee will try to restore credibility to the office...and will be joined by repubs and dems in that.  I take no pleasure in saying this, but I'm seriously and gravely disappointed.

    by Ellicatt on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:12:08 AM PDT

  •  Schumer

    G: I would assume that I knew, but i don't think that's the main point

    ...

    G: my understanding was that mr comey would be making decision wrt this matter

    S: when you went to the hosp what was your understanding of his condition

    G: may have understood that he was sick, that he was in intensive care

    S: did you know all visitors were being barred by his wife

    G: realized she was concerned

    S: facts have come out she had barred

    S: did you have docs... transferred all auth to comey

    G: probably had them, they may have come in, have no recollection

    S: can you review and provide

    G: be happy to try to have that done

    S: have to comm by friday

    S: did you discuss classif info in front of mrs ashcroft

    G: my recoll is no, ashcroft did virtually all the talking

    S: who sent you

    G: we had a very imp mtg at WH

    S: anyone tell you to go

    G: it was one of the most imp pgms for the US auth by pres

    S: did pres asked you to go

    G: we were there on behalf of the pres

    S: did the pres ask you to go

    G: we were there on behal of pres

    S: why can't you answer

    G: again we were there on behalf of pres

    S: you're before this comm, supposed to answer questions, you haven't claimed any privil, why can't you answer

    G: this relates to activities when i was in WH, i will go back and ask if i can answer

    S: did vp ask you to go

    G: we were there on behalf of pres

    S: you kept referring to meeting of gang of 8, did any member of the gang ask you to go

    G: no

    S: they had no knowledgee

    G: i didn't tell them

    S: did they know that ashcroft and mueller were prep to resign over the prgm

    G: not sure that's true, not sure if we got into any disc about that

    S: did they know there was dissent w/in doj

    G: i was pretty clear, they understood that dep ag didn't believe pres had auth... i think they understood there was serious dissent

    S: but you testif to us that you didn't believe there was dissent, now you're saying they know

    G: the dissent was not about the terr surv pgm

    S: would they say that, woudl they say it was about other activities

    G: i can't tell you what they would say

    S: going back to same conundrum.. doesn't seem that you're leveling with comm or amer people.. you said they knew that there was dissent but when you testif you said there was none and it's about the same program because there's only one program...defies discussion.. was about nothing other than the tsp.. you're dissembling, was it about the tsp

    G: disagreement on the 10th was about other activities.. visit to hosp had to do with other intel activites

    S: was it about the tsp

    G: it was about other intel activ

    S: did the gang have access to legal counsel concerns, opinions, those in charge of legality said it wasn't

    G: mr comey was unwilling to continue

    S: you're asking them to approve new legisl.. don't you think it would be logical and fari to tell them that counsel disagreed

    G: think it was reasonable to assume if dep ag had disagreements that others might too

    S: leahy, specter and i have discussed idea of having patrick fitzgerald testify before commitee... last week sutton was made avail.. he's in same position.. sutton testified about issues that will not affect the appeal.. should this comm wish to bring fitz before us, would you have any objection

    G: i'm recused from fitz

    S: who would make that decision

    G: dep ag,  paul mcnulty

    S: but you aren't going to opine whether that would be okay

    G: i was recused

    by joanneleon on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:14:55 AM PDT

  •  Specter

    specter, concluding comments

    S: ag gonzales, ask you to take a close look at the funcitoning of your dept or consult with others to help you get an objective view.. morale at all time low.. usattys don't know when next shoe will drop.. would ask you to take a look at morale issue, how dept is functioning generally.. mentioned oxycontin case because recvd a lot of publicity... looks to me as if dept is dysfunctional.. when you have many people killed and addicted when there is delib misleading.. that's criminal conduct.. profits made on these drugs are in the billions.. we can't possibly run your dept.. i know you're recused technically but you're still the AG and we really need to reach an agreement with admin to conclude this investig.. know you want this as much as us, perhaps more so.. wrote to WH counsel about a meeting where conyers and us might talk to the pres.. come to conclusions and judgements.. transcript issue seems to me fundamental.. don't know why anyone would want to appear without a transcript.. if they insist on it i'd even take that.. think that conyers, leahy, schumer could find out a lot of info.. won't give up senate's right to subpoena

    S: think back to old ... robert jackson.. still citing his opinions.. would just ask you to consider the interests of the DOJ and the interests of the amer people because your dept and the dept of defense are the most important depts

    by joanneleon on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:15:56 AM PDT

  •  Leahy

    Leahy: the tragic thing here is the ongoing crisis... undermining crucial work that good people do.. thousands of honest people.. prevent crime and uncover crime.. in my years as prosecutor remem my admiration for them.. professionals, career people, never had any one of them say anything to me political, always got straightforward answers.  you say morale is good, it is not.  you come here seeking our trust.  frankly mr ag you've lost mine.  this is something i've never said to any cabinet member, even ones I disagreed with.. they deserve better.. once disregard for rule of law is shown... any prosec carries with them the cred of their office.. that cred is lost... this comm will try its best to restore it and the committment to the rule of law.  i take no pleasure in saying htis but i am seriously, gravely disappointed.

    we stand adjourned.

    by joanneleon on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:16:10 AM PDT

    •  Would you like to post # 7

      as a wrap up diary?  Would allow you to collect some well deserved mojo.

      by Marcus Tullius on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:17:12 AM PDT

      •  I can do so

        Just asked the question in comment and was waiting for a response from "liveblog" or someone :)

        by joanneleon on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:18:23 AM PDT

•  Playground

  Here.  More tips appreciated...lost my TU status on vacation.

  by MKinTN on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:34:39 AM PDT

  •  I'll help you, sweetie

    Thanks for the diary!

    by deha on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:35:41 AM PDT

  •  where's 4Square?

    I used to rock at that game...

    by Omen on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:36:14 AM PDT

  •  Vacation TU loss

    Happened to me, too. (Got it back now). Sheesh, I don't lose my job when I go on vacation. Couldn't we just turn in a leave request to Kos?

    by Catte Nappe on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:36:17 AM PDT

    •  Great idea! n/t

      by MKinTN on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:38:57 AM PDT

    •  Lost mine too.

      I've been very busy with work, extra work, have had problems posting in the Sunday Talk diaries, and dealing with life and death issues with my brother.  :(

      I don't mind not having it much of the time, but I miss being able to see the hidden comments and fix tags.  I've rarely troll rated people, but this past week I wanted to use it a couple of times.  ;-)

      by Maggie Mae on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:44:04 AM PDT

      •  Me thrice

        You get busy with work, family, and Kos's software program knock you down.

        by egarratt on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:49:29 AM PDT

        •  What? You have a life? sheesh...:) nt

          by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:12:48 AM PDT

  •  Pile on the MoJo

    folks.

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:36:26 AM PDT

    •  Hi -

      by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:37:15 AM PDT

      •  HI!

        How are you today, inclusiveheart?  This is sorta fun, isn't it?

        by Hummingbird on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:40:14 AM PDT

        •  Cool to watch Whitehouse as always!! :)

          Mis posted and was trying to ask you a question - lol.

          by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:41:12 AM PDT

      •  Hi, inclusiveheart

        finally, a hearing worth listening to.

        by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:10:23 AM PDT

    •  Try this again...

      Hi - where did this new system of separating the comments from the transcriptions come from?  I think it makes the context of the hearings much harder to read and follow. Just wanted to figure out when and how this happened.

      by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:40:27 AM PDT

      •  I think...

        It was donnamarie & others.

        If you open in 2 windows, you can follow both the transcripts and the commentary.  I kind of like it better this way.

        by MKinTN on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:42:09 AM PDT

        •  Well, trying to go back in time and figure

          out which comment goes with what transcript makes it harder imo.

          Part of the problem is that there are comments that call out and contextualize particular parts of the transcripts so it is harder now to scan through comments to see that there is a notable item and find the corresponding transcript.  But I guess it is done.  

          by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:46:48 AM PDT

        •  can you update the diary?

          marcus is #8 and TBM is #9.

          thanks!

          by Liveblog on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:59:55 AM PDT

          •  Ya, sure, ya betcha! n/t

            by MKinTN on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:05:47 AM PDT

      •  A few weeks ago, I think

        Some people don't have time to read comments, too, so transcription is separated out for them.

        by deha on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:42:34 AM PDT

      •  signal to noise ratio

        Depending on how many people are transcribing, the substance of the hearing can be lost amid the chatter.  Separating out the transcription comments help people find out what actually happened without wading through people talking about smirks, hair styles and squeaky voices.  Information versus entertainment - I side with information.

        by Fabian on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:47:02 AM PDT

        •  I side with information too, but I think

          that the transcripts without context commentary don't necessarily transmit all of the information.

          by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:49:57 AM PDT

          •  The earlier Gonzales hearings

            were just rife with huge amounts of chatter.  And the House hearings were truly chaotic with members given a mere five minutes apiece.  It's hard to make sense of all that quickly, so this setup helps people with connectivity or time constraints by giving them easy-to-find transcripts.

            by Fabian on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:06:34 AM PDT

            •  I understand the concept and the problem of

              chatter commentary, but I still think that losing the comments that give context to the transcripts sort of defeats the purpose of reviewing the events on a blog as opposed to going to the official transcriptions which are more accurate and complete anyway - but also lack context, backstory, references to the previous questioning by other witnesses, as well as explanations about why a particular exchange was significant.

              But I can go over to FDL or TPM to track that stuff I guess.

              by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:15:23 AM PDT

              •  It's a free blogosphere!

                Competition is good.

                I admit that I envy FDL for having emptywheel.  

                by Fabian on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:27:44 AM PDT

•  Sheldon Whitehouse

  Give him the whole 6 hours!  After that, Gonzo would be done. Done!

  by JLFinch on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:35:17 AM PDT

  •  You're a Joke Gonzo

    It is very difficult to take your promises serioursly to restore the Dept of Justice...Sheldon Rocks!!!!

    by Arkydem on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:36:28 AM PDT

  •  Can we have another few dozen like him?

    Pretty please? This guy is incredible.

    by deha on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:36:36 AM PDT

    •  He's a former U.S. attorney himself.

      The firings hit home for him.

      by BruinKid on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:49:17 AM PDT

  •  I would really hate to

    be on the witness stand,testifying, with Whitehouse interrogating me.  Well, that's if I was trying to fudge or lie about the answer.  I'd love it, if he were defending me!  LOL.

    by Maggie Mae on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:38:03 AM PDT

  •  wouldnt it have been something

    to hear the first words out of Gonzo's mouth when he was out of earshot of the committee!!

    by fireflynw on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:55:15 AM PDT

•  Brilliant title to the diary.

  Thanks.

  by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:36:04 AM PDT

  •  If you can't have fun...

    ...why show up?

    by MKinTN on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:37:20 AM PDT

•  "It is very difficult at this point...

  ... to take seriously your promises to restore the Dept. of Justice."

  -- Whitehouse

  Hear! Hear!

  by abw on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:36:08 AM PDT

•  Whitehouse listing

  all of the people who've left the AG Office...dizamn.

  by Omen on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:37:14 AM PDT

•  RECOMMEND FIRST DIARY

  If you haven't done so.  It is slipping off the rec list.  Thank you.

  by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:37:25 AM PDT

•  Sheldon Whitehouse

  Has good researchers/ leak access.
  These memos are hot, and no MSM has figured them out before he drops it in SJC.
  Big props.

  by drational on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:37:27 AM PDT

•  The Cheese Stands Alone n/t

  by bernardpliers on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:37:34 AM PDT

•  Unethical And Indeed Unlawful! Pure & Simple!

  by leonard145b on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:37:35 AM PDT

•  You sir are, in fact, the problem

  by abw on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:38:03 AM PDT

•  Whitehouse to gonzo: you are the problem

  gonzo:  please don't vote me off ...

  by BigiMac on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:38:05 AM PDT

•  "Something must be said, no matter the risk..."

  STANDING OVATION!

  by Five of Diamonds on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:38:06 AM PDT

  •  did Whitehouse say that?

    Wow.

    by CocoaLove on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:54:04 AM PDT

    •  oh yes he did!

      "it appears to a lot of people, sir, that you are the problem."

      by Liveblog on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:14:57 AM PDT

•  God, I love Whitehouse

  These Senators are skewering ABU... :)

  Everyone here is saying that they don't believe you, Abu!

  Lying little worm.

  Whitehouse listing all the people that are now gone. From the Denver Post: The DOJ has been thoroughly politicized, and that the writer may be subject to unlawful reprisal...

  by Hummingbird on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:38:06 AM PDT

•  I don't know how you say can solve the problem

  it appears, sir, to a lot of people, you ARE the problem

  by TampaProgressive on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:38:09 AM PDT

  •  I wanted to stand up and cheer when he

    said that!

    Now Gonzo's stumbling all over himself.

    by deha on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:39:55 AM PDT

  •  man

    Why do I have to miss this interrogation? This is incredible.

    by CocoaLove on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:54:54 AM PDT

•  Great!!!

  He's reading the USAG's letter slamming Gonzo and the administration.

  by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:38:19 AM PDT

  •  ah, that's the Denver Post

    article.  Thanks!

    by Hummingbird on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:42:47 AM PDT

•  OT, Put "OT" in subject line for your comment

  So that others may follow the transcribing and describing.

  Thank you.

  "Off topic" comments can be read later.........

  I am a speedreader but not at the speed of light..........

  by LNK on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:38:36 AM PDT

  •  Transcription located

    as replies to first comment.

    by Marcus Tullius on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:39:41 AM PDT

•  And the think the repugs invited

  all this today because they refused to force Chimpy get rid of Gonzo, long ago.

  And they're still backing him.

  What fools.

  by edwardssl on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:38:44 AM PDT

•  How many times will they call Gonzo a liar??

  and it just rolls off his back ....

  by Da Rock on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:38:47 AM PDT

  •  It's amazing

    Isn't it?  He just lies, and lies and lies.  And they all know he's lying, and he knows they know he's lying!  It's time to IMPEACH!

    by Hummingbird on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:44:47 AM PDT

    •  Easy to do with a....