Liveblog VII: Wrap Up - Gonzales vs Senate Judiciary Committee

The hearing has adjourned, so we can use this diary as a wrap up.  
Note: The hearing is being rebroadcast right now, also on C-SPAN3.  They started it again right after it ended.

C-SPAN 3 video link

This is diary #7, the previous diaries are

Mothership    LiveBlog
Liveblog 2    shayera
Liveblog 3    gchaucer2
Liveblog 4    Remembering Jello
Liveblog 5    Fabian
Liveblog 6    MKinTN
Liveblog 7    joanneleon (you are here)

Probables:
OneCrankyDom
kfred
sailmaker
TruBlueMajority - #9, number 9...number 9

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.

•  Gonzales is

  shameful!

  by etherapy on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:22:39 AM PDT

  •  There are far too many

    ...disparaging adjectives that apply to Gonzales.

    by MKinTN on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:23:33 AM PDT

  •  I woulda said

    an embarrassment to every American

    by Da Rock on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:25:02 AM PDT

  •  Yes and please don't say he's stupid.

    This is all an act of evil, lying and weaseling. He just SOUNDS stupid because he's so bad at it. In fact he has done a fine job so far of not letting this move up the chain.

    by Uniter on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:27:41 AM PDT

    •  With All the Practice He's Had..He MUST Be Stupid

      to not be any better at it than he is...

      by TheManWithNoPoint on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:29:14 AM PDT

      •  You have a point there. (n/t)

        by Nowhere Man on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:07:32 PM PDT

    •  yeah but

      he clearly could not comprehend a question posed by Sheldon Whitehouse.

      He's not the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

      ````
      peace
      
      

      by peace voter on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:36:25 AM PDT

    •  He's under the pardon umbrella n/t

      by joanneleon on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:39:10 AM PDT

      •  That's why the House must IMPEACH the

        smirking little liar.

        by Friend of the court on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:29:37 AM PDT

  •  Gonzales has all the signs

    of a man who is simply not going to tell the truth, and who knows that he will be pardoned preemptively if he gets into legal trouble.  

    by joanneleon on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:38:34 AM PDT

    •  Bush can't pardon Gonzales for perjury

      or contempt of Congress that he commits after Bush leaves office.

      by lysias on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:05:45 AM PDT

      •  he can't pardon impeachment either.........

        by buddabelly on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:23:46 AM PDT

•  tips

  Well, that was a live one, eh?  

  by joanneleon on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:23:32 AM PDT

  •  YEEE-HAW!!!!

    Big fun!

    (as the TN in me comes out...heh)

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

    •  More and more noise seems inevitable.

      Recused from its history, what is the basis for him to rebuild at DoJ?

      by signalcamp on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:48:24 AM PDT

•  i hope

  they're considering something a little more than expressing their disappointment!

  leahy wants our support for reinstating habeas corpus.  being disappointed ain't gonna reinstate squat!

  please say it isn't so, f

  by democat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:24:03 AM PDT

  •  earlier, during one of their breaks

    leahy was asked and confirmed that he would pursue what avenues were available if people don't comply with their subpoenas, etc.

    by Liveblog on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:25:38 AM PDT

    •  Such as contempt.

      He was specific, he quite deliberately did not mentioned the I word.

      by protectedmode on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:28:46 AM PDT

      •  well,

        a) the senate doesn't initiate impeachment

        b) you can't go impeaching anybody for failing to appear before congress

        by Liveblog on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:41:36 AM PDT

        •  If the Senate leaders

          requested the House initiate impeachment proceedings, it would be quite influential.

          I’m not sure what your second point is, so I can’t answer it.

          by protectedmode on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:01:35 AM PDT

      •  Unbelievable

        You'd think that these people would at least mention that impeachment was possible. I know the House files the motions to impeach, but the senators should all be "saying the I word" right about now.

        How many more lies does Gonzo have to tell before someone in charge says he needs to be impeached?

        WTF?

        by racerx on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:41:08 AM PDT

        •  That happens in the House

          Call the House Judiciary and insist on impeachment.

          202-225-3591

          by Hummingbird on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:47:41 AM PDT

•  I didn't get to watch it all, but I was pretty

  disappointed at the end when Leahy said he hoped AG was able to regain the trust of the thousands of good people in the dept.  Didn't sound like he planned to do too much about the lies and the crimes.  Like I said I didn't get to watch much so maybe I got a bad sample.

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

  •  Between those calm and measured

    words of somnolent disappointment, though, there was definitely an undercurrent of "You, sir, are obviously a lying sack of shit that has no credibilty and you'd better get your slippery little turds in a row, 'cuz we're not done!"

    by CJB on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:31:17 AM PDT

    •  Yes, AND???

      so what are they gonna do about it?

      I missed most of the beginning, so WHAT exactly was this hearing all about?  I know Gonzo was supposed to answer all those written questions, but did he REALLY answer them or leave only more questions with his "answers"?

      My impression (albeit not based on the WHOLE hearing) was more of the same?

      Am I off-base?

      by Terre on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:37:13 AM PDT

      •  Not that it means

        anything until it happens, but Schumer is pushing for "further action" which translates into contempt since they aren't the initiating body for impeachment.

        by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:39:11 AM PDT

        •  When does Congress start it's recess?

          If it's at the end of this week, we're talking another month of no action, another 2 weeks before a vote on contempt charges, or maybe calling in one or more of the "gang of 8" - maybe?

          This is getting REALLY OLD already.

          by Terre on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:44:46 AM PDT

          •  Actually, they can

            start the ball rolling in Committee as early as this afternoon and then bring it to the full Senate.  You know Lieberman isn't going to vote for it -- but Specter may fill his spot.

            by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:08:05 AM PDT

            •  That's what they NEED to do

              Get this show on the road already, and demonstrate to the WH that they mean business!

              This dancing around the mulberry bush, or playing musical chairs...  At the risk of repeating myself - Do something MORE than verbal sparring for chrissakes!

              by Terre on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:01:42 PM PDT

      •  Leahy was angry,

        but he was quite careful and very clear that they aren’t going to do anything but express further indignation.

        by protectedmode on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:42:02 AM PDT

      •  No, no. You're spot on.

        Briefly:

        AGAG did more of his non-speak unanswers.  Senators got truly and deeply pissed in their own senatorial fashion.  One time AGAG blamed Monica Goodling, the emotionally disturbed hysterical woman.  Then he blamed Ashcroft, the sick guy.  Then he just settled into a nice comfy verbal shuffle-ball-change through to the finale.

        The bright light for me was Specter - was it Specter or Schumer? - asking whether or not Gonzo minded if they called in Fitzgerald at some point.  Gonza said since he (Gonzo) had been recused, that the ? would have to be asked of the deputy AG (McNulty, innit?).

        So, they're not done.

        by CJB on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:45:05 AM PDT

        •  That was Schumer

          who asked about calling Fitz in.

          by lysias on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:07:51 AM PDT

          •  Thx. I had it on, but I was

            listening and not watching.  Don't have all the voices down.  I'm surprised at how many I do recognize, though!  (Damned Cspan junkies.)

            by CJB on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:10:33 AM PDT

      •  They mentioned a special prosecutor,

        for one thing, and comtempt for another. Specter was all over Gonzo even more than before, too. They linked the VP to Judiciary, which silenced Gonzo. They asked if he'd mind if they asked Fitzgerald to testify.

        I think a lot happened, Bonzo was just stupid-sounding as ever.

        by cotterperson on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:53:00 AM PDT

        •  Ya know, there's contempt

          for the DOJ's actions with words alone, and contempt for their actions with real action of their own.

          I'll take the latter.  I'm at the breaking point with the former.

          by Terre on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:01:40 AM PDT

•  I felt so dirty...

  watching a grown man get stood up, bent over, and spanked so many times...it was kind of exciting.

  Is that wrong?

  by Sidof79 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:24:30 AM PDT

  •  Depends On Who the Man Is!!!! nt

    by Gooserock on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:27:33 AM PDT

    •  maybe we could ask vitter

      Oh wait, you said, "depends on who the man is", not "who is the man with the Depends".

      by teedz on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:06:24 PM PDT

  •  Absolutely perverted.

    They're going to have to sic Chris Hanson on you.

    Funny McCain Pics archive updated regularly

    by InsultComicDog on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:27:37 AM PDT

    •  Or Jeff Gannon...n/t

      by TheManWithNoPoint on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:30:12 AM PDT

  •  No. Ask One Cranky Dom n/t

    by donnamarie on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:27:54 AM PDT

    •  Hey, donnamarie

      Have you been around for the whole thing?  It was moving so quickly, I didn't have time to see who was posting.

      by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:40:20 AM PDT

      •  Nope

        Logged in at the vote break.  I've been out of town all weekend.  Everyone did a fabulous job I'm reading the Live Blogs now.

        by donnamarie on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:03:13 AM PDT

        •  I thought you said

          you'd be on a mini-vacation.  Hope you had good weather.

          by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:10:09 AM PDT

          •  Yep, beach vacation

            Some rain (of course) but a great time.

            by donnamarie on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:28:14 AM PDT

•  So did we learn anything new today?

  Funny McCain Pics archive updated regularly

  by InsultComicDog on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:24:49 AM PDT

  •  Well,

    there was apparantly more than one illegal wiretapping program...

    by Remembering Jello on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:26:40 AM PDT

    •  According to Gonzo only 1. Plus "others". n/t

      by MyBrainWorks on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:29:52 AM PDT

      •  doesn't that just sum up his testimony?

        He'd misdirect on a dime.  If the question was specific, he'd generalize as broadly as possible.  If the question was broad, he'd nitpick one specific situation.  If the question was about him and someone else, he'd talk about the other person(Goodling).  If the question was about this date, he'd bring up another date.

        And then there was the WaPo reporter who Gonzales claimed he followed up with in order to clarify.  Only when he was asked when he contacted the reporter and what was said....
        ....
        Apparently, Gonzales didn't know because he had a staffer follow up for him.  Was he clueless or just lying like the lying liar he is?  

        Where's Al Franken when you need him?

        by Fabian on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:49:12 AM PDT

        •  Some guy who works for me

          clarified with some reporter or other at some time. I don't know if it was ever printed or anything.  Or who the reporter was.  Or when.  Or even which one of my guys did that.

          But that means I wasn't lying, okay?

          by Gareth on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:06:05 AM PDT

          •  Dan Eggen, of the Washington Post.

            I believe I heard Gonzo identify the reporter.

            by lysias on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:09:50 AM PDT

            •  Too bad for Gonzo

              because Eggan won't lie for him and he has no reason to protect a source and not respond.  Will be interesting to see if we learn about a follow-up.

              by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:11:55 AM PDT

    •  Didn't we already know that? n/t

      by Terre on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:38:23 AM PDT

      •  Yes

        It came out, in so many words, in a hearing long ago. Ironically it was either Sessions or Graham who brought it out.

        by joanneleon on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:42:11 AM PDT

        •  Yep - that's what I remember too

          It was Gonzo, when he kept referring to the fact that he was ONLY going to discuss the program that Bush had fessed up to in his press conference.  

          by Terre on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:52:00 AM PDT

    •  He hinted about this at the first wiretap

      hearing, I can still see his smirk.  I remember yelling at the TV for somebody to follow-up but, no dice.

      by Friend of the court on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:38:57 AM PDT

    •  I wouldn't put it past them...

      ..to have "renamed" the program each time they reauthorized it, so they could claim that 'the program being discussed' was discontinued.

      Cynical, but appropriate, given who we're talking about

      by floundericiousMI on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:58:21 AM PDT

      •  They've done it before

        Your comment jogged my memory... from Wikipedia:

        On January 16, 2003, Senator Russ Feingold introduced legislation to suspend the activity of the IAO and the Total Information Awareness program pending a Congressional review of privacy issues involved.... In February of 2003, Congress passed legislation suspending activities of the IAO pending a Congressional report of the office's activities ...

        In response to this legislation, DARPA provided Congress on May 20, 2003 with a report on its activities. In this report, IAO changed the name of the program to the Terrorism Information Awareness Program and emphasized that the program was not designed to compile dossiers on US citizens, but rather to research and develop the tools that would allow authorized agencies to gather information on terrorist networks. Despite the name change and these assurances, the critics continued to see the system as prone to potential misuse or abuse.

        by Nowhere Man on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:15:49 PM PDT

        •  Link

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          by Nowhere Man on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:16:53 PM PDT

  •  Same ol' same ol'

    Questions asked - lies recanted - disappointment all around.

    by Da Rock on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:26:40 AM PDT

    •  Nope, Gonzales just kept digging.

      He's beyond redemption now.  He's so totally hosed.  I wonder what university would put him on their staff if he did resign.

      by Fabian on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:54:03 AM PDT

      •  Regent

        for the endowed legal ethics chair.

        by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:12:46 AM PDT

        •  DING

          Brilliant!

          by floundericiousMI on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:57:12 AM PDT

  •  There were serious hints about perjury charges

    Schumer especially was dogged about conflicting testimony. He and Leahy agreed that they'd have to go over prior transcripts "very carefully" to review Gonzo's testimony to see if/how many times he contradicted himself.

    by MyBrainWorks on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:27:03 AM PDT

    •  You hit the nail on the head!!!

      That "Very Carefully" statement sent a clear message that Gonzo is GOING DOWN!!

      by tshaw1 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:30:52 AM PDT

    •  I don't think it was perjury

      they were hinting at, they blustered, but it still sounded like more nonbinding resolutions and strongly worded letters are in Gonzo’s future.

      by protectedmode on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:32:06 AM PDT

    •  How many times is it going to take?

      Haven't they been saying that every time he testifies? They seem to know he's lying through his teeth. Why weren't they prepared with contempt charges if his answers didn't make sense?  They had warned him and others prior to appearing that they better come up with some answers.  Now when he once again has no valid answers we're told they're going to review the info again?  Jesus H Tapdancing Christ what is it going to take to get some action?!?!?

      by cometman on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:33:03 AM PDT

      •  The purpose of these hearings

        is to continue to discredit the administration so that people will vote Democratic next cycle. That’s all. They believe impeachment, or any sort of action that has a probability of success is too politically divisive, therefore not worth the risk. The Democrats are trying to run out the clock while exposing as much shit about BushCo. as they can.

        They truly believe that it’s a winning strategy; they think voters will be so disgusted by the Republican corruption that they’ll flock to the Democrats. They believe there is no risk that enough voters, will stay home, vote green abstain from voting for the worst of them or, from the Republican side, see no difference in the Parties and vote as they always have.  

        It sucks. But that’s the real answer. There will be no impeachment, their calculus it’s on the Democratic side which they view as worth it. It isn’t about morality, the constitution, right, wrong, abuse of process, perjury, none of it. There is nothing the administration can do to provoke impeachment. It’s a done deal. Period.

        by protectedmode on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:50:02 AM PDT

        •  I suspect you are right.....

          but I'm pretty sure their reasoning is completely wrong, especially in the long term.  If the Dems want people to stop buying into Nader's line that there is no difference between the parties, they need to stand up for themselves and do what is right.

          If they don't, I suspect that even more people will become disgusted with the whole process and stay home on election day.  This usually help republicans.

          I really feel that if the dems stood up and fought, they would win the presidency and congress in a landslide.  maybe that is what they are afraid of- too much new blood in Congress all at once might upset the status quo.  Too many new democrats might want to actually push for single payer healthcare and stop the excesses of the defense industry, corporations be damned.

          And we all know that we just can't have that.

          by cometman on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:15:41 AM PDT

          •  In the long run,

            the strategy is catastrophic, in the short run it's not much better than that. First and foremost, because there is nothing close to a guarantee that the Democrats will regain the WH. There is a reason the Republicans are throwing money Hillary’s way, and it’s the same Reason that made them support Nader financially.

            By effectively avoiding these abuses now, the abuses will become more entrenched, and all but impossible to correct in a new, Republican, administration. I suspect the Democrats gamble is also because they want to preserve these expanded Presidential powers for themselves to use (abuse) down the road. The obvious problem with that plan is that it will be wrong from either Party, even if the Democrats win in ’08.

            It’s strange, I feel much better about the Democrats failure to act decisively since I figured out what their game is. Sadly, however, there are only one or two local Democrats, and maybe my US Rep I’ll vote for (if the election were held tomorrow). If I’m willing to go down the ticket (I’ll vote green or indy, not Republican) due to disgust, the Party may have more problems then they realize.

            by protectedmode on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:37:31 AM PDT

    •  Notice that 'dogged' is a good thing

      . . . not surprisingly, there's no reference to anything 'cat' like here

      hehehhehehheee

      by Roadbed Guy on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:48:12 AM PDT

  •  We Learned Gonzo Lied When He Said The President

    had nothing to do with the firings of United States Attorneys.  

    by leonard145b on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:28:10 AM PDT

  •  It sorta surprised me

    that he was willing to use the old "Monica Goodling is emotionally disturbed" defense.

    by CJB on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:28:26 AM PDT

    •  I love a Republican circular firing squad

      Funny McCain Pics archive updated regularly

      by InsultComicDog on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:34:12 AM PDT

      •  Monica Goodling

        sounds like they're just throwing her to the wolves... maybe that will embolden her to be more forthcoming though?

        by froggywomp on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:38:16 AM PDT

        •  She was very confident

          during her testimony.  She's been taken care of.

          by joanneleon on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:44:36 AM PDT

    •  Distraught

      Well, actually he said she was very emotionally distraught.  

      But heck, during her testimony before the committee, she didn't seem very distraught to me!

      by joanneleon on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:44:07 AM PDT

      •  But, but, but - she has a letter -

        from the President!

        by moose67 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:46:36 AM PDT

        •  Sara Taylor

          of the "I took an oath to the President." fame was the one with the letter.

          Monica Goodling was more "Oops, I did it again.".  (screening candidates illegally using data such as party affiliation)

          by Fabian on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:56:58 AM PDT

          •  Darn - you are correct -

            I get these blond Regent grads all mixed up.

            by moose67 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:03:20 PM PDT

            •  Monica had immunity n/t

              by joanneleon on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:17:31 PM PDT

      •  she sobbed for 45 minutes

        from TPM:

        A former U.S. Justice Department official and central figure in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys tearfully told a colleague two months ago her government career probably was over as the matter was about to erupt into a political storm, according to closed-door congressional testimony.
        Monica Goodling, at the time an aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, sobbed for 45 minutes in the office of career Justice Department official David Margolis on March 8 as she related her fears that she would have to quit, according to congressional aides briefed on Margolis's private testimony to House and Senate investigators. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity.

        Margolis's description of the emotional scene in his office sheds new light on divisions that were developing in the Justice Department's Washington headquarters as the Democratic-controlled Congress was demanding documents that might show White House involvement in the dismissals.

        I suppose this supports the claim that she was distraught when Gonzo spoke to her prior to her testimony.

        ````
        peace
        
        

        by peace voter on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:57:39 AM PDT

        •  March 15

          He says he "didn't try to shape her testimony"

          "she was confused & probably needed reasurance"

          So his meeting with Goodling was one week after her meeting with Margolis.

          He told her that noone had done anything "intentially" wrong.

          He kept emphasizing the word "intentionally".

          I think he repeated it three times.

          `````
          peace
          
          

          by peace voter on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 01:04:45 PM PDT

  •  Nothing.

    He lied more, congress acted more indignant. Sound and fury.

    by protectedmode on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:30:17 AM PDT

  •  Serious door opened into the White House

    BY Whitehouse in his secon round of questioning.  Gonzo issued a memo in 2006 outlining who could talk to whom between the DoJ and the White House.  The memo specified EVP, EOP, their chiefs of staff, the OMB as well.

    The memo was very clumsily done also.  Want to see if someone has a copy of it.  Highly suspect, it sounded as though they had to clear major decisions thru the EVP or EOP before proceeding, but it wasn't completely clear.

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

    •  Also the VP's counsel, who just happened to be

      David Addington.

      And the VP's chief of staff just happened to be Scooter.

      by lysias on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:11:59 AM PDT

•  I Have to Wonder If They Have Any Real Power to

  impeach or prosecute him. Yes I know the law gives it to them but it all needs Republican collaboration.

  S.P.E.C.T.R.E.'s or some other Republican's questions about immigration and criticism strikes me as an opening to the wingnut base to support removal or resignation for palatable reasons?

  by Gooserock on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:26:35 AM PDT

  •  It wasn't Spectre

    that's for sure.  He was on fire and furious.  

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:28:24 AM PDT

    •  He does put on a good act

      doesn't he?

      Wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't for the cancer thing, he'd be a leading presidential candidate on the GOP side . . .

      by Roadbed Guy on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:49:24 AM PDT

•  Ninth!

  by reef the dog on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:26:41 AM PDT

  •  My dog has me well-trained.

    He moves his head toward me, and I pet it ;)

    Got bones?

    by cotterperson on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:34:44 AM PDT

•  Does anyone know Gonzo’s

  response to whether he would obey the WH on the Congressional contempt effort?

  by protectedmode on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:26:51 AM PDT

  •  He claimed recusal

    the answer he loves to give when he doesn't want to answer.

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:28:59 AM PDT

    •  He isn’t recused on that issue,

      it hasn’t occurred yet. They let him get away with that?

      ;aldksjf bangs head on keyboard; asdf=adsfaeoripq9084uoiadhg043ur90cjrklt47q

      by protectedmode on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:34:33 AM PDT

      •  Um, he's involved

        because he wrote an opinion letter re: Miers protection under executive privilege, so yes, he has to recuse himself.

        by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:46:28 AM PDT

        •  Oh. OK. Well,

          who is standing in for him? Will that person obey the WH? Why do I bother to ask?

          by protectedmode on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:51:26 AM PDT

          •  Deputy Atty Gen'l

            that's McNulty for the next few days, then I don't know who is next.

            by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:14:48 AM PDT

            •  ...

              sorry, it's albertos all the way down...

              by floundericiousMI on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:52:24 AM PDT

  •  I think it was

    "Fuck you".  Of course I'm paraphrasing here.  

    by reef the dog on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:29:17 AM PDT

    •  No, that's about what I heard. n/t

      by Remembering Jello on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:30:00 AM PDT

  •  It's "An Ongoing Controversy" That He "Recused"

    himself from, so he can't answer that question.

    by leonard145b on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:29:37 AM PDT

    •  Ongoing?

      It hasn’t happened. If something hasn’t started, it isn’t ongoing. Either he’ll represent the Congress or he won’t. I’m glad I didn’t see it now.

      OK. If he recused himself, who will act in his place on this? No one? Huh.

      Why do they put up with this? Why?

      by protectedmode on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:37:35 AM PDT

      •  I'm not defending him

        but it is an ongoing controversy -- it started the minute he issued an opinion letter and Bush claimed total executive immunity and Harriet Miers didn't show up.

        by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:48:38 AM PDT

        •  My mistake.

          I’m just venting. Sorry I took it out on you.  Now I understand. Well, I don’t understand, but I know how he justified his answer.

          by protectedmode on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:52:30 AM PDT

          •  I didn't take your comment

            as directed at me.  Frustration is mounting everywhere, but I am holding fire until I see what comes of the contempt citations from the House and see what Leahy does with today's testimony.  They basically called him a liar dozens of times so they absolutely should consider contempt.

            The Senate cannot initiate Impeachment hearings but they sure as hell can put some pressure on the House.

            by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:55:15 AM PDT

            •  It is true that the

              Senate cannot initiate impeachment, but they can call for it. Their influence would go a long way to motivate the house. Contempt should be a no brainer, but who would prosecute it?

              by protectedmode on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:57:42 AM PDT

              •  Inherent contempt

                is prosecuted within either the House or Senate.  I'm hoping that is the direction Conyers takes with Miers and Bolton.

                by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:59:42 AM PDT

                •  Agree about the inherent contempt.

                  But it isn't going to happen, I wish it would too.

                  The problem with inherent contempt in the Senate is, I think, it can be filibustered. Still, they should do it to, and honestly allow the filibuster. Can you imagine Democrats enumerating the BushCo crimes for hours and days on the Senate floor? I’m drifting off into a dream world...

                  by protectedmode on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:04:39 AM PDT

•  So will Gonzo be charged with perjury?

  Will we have a special prosecutor?  What's your best estimate...

  by Sick Of It on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:28:53 AM PDT

  •  No special prosecutor

    but Schumer is going to push hard for perjury.  Backed by Whitehouse.

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:29:55 AM PDT

    •  i can see it now.