(Image via Twolf1. Alternate image via Cozumel: Texas Toast, the continuing saga...)
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is set to testify today before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Testimony will begin at 9:30 am ET -- and will be covered live on C-Span3. I'll try to liveblog to the best of my ability this morning as the hearing moves forward -- but that requires a little cooperation from all of you. The more you fill up the comments with one-liners and/or irrelevent, off-topic comments, the faster I have to change threads. Which means I have to pause my Tivo...and that puts the liveblogging behind.
So, keep the comments sparse, and I'll liveblog as quickly and accurately as I can, and we'll all be happier. Thanks gang. Now, onto the Texas Toast...
__________________________
SEN. HATCH QUESTIONS: Let me start by saying Guantanimo is scary. Be afraid of terrorists. No closing it -- because I've staked my political livelihood on the scary terrorist meme. [CHS notes: Am paraphrasing here.] I'd like to give you a full opportunity to fully describe your CYA story about the Ashcroft hospital visit. Gonzales says that the DOJ had repeatedly approved the NSA domestic spying two years prior -- Hatch asks whether COmey had been there that whole time, and Gonzales says no, but he can't remember how long he'd been DAG. Gonzales says that the consensus of Congressional leadership was that the program should continue. [CHS notes: Hmmm...concensus -- so it was a unanimous agreement from Congressional Gang of 8 folks, meanign that there was dissent about this that the WH previously has not acknowledged either.] Congressional leadership consensus also that it would be difficult to obntain legislation without compromising the program [CHS note: i.e., without revealing that the WH had been serially breaking the FISA law for the last few years.] Gonzales says that they wouldn't have aked anything of Ashcroft had he not been competent. Ashcroft talked most of the time, was lucid about legal issues -- he and Card spoke with Comey after Ashcroft indicated that Comey was making the decision and he stood by him on that. So, basically, according to Gonzales, it's the fault of the Gang of Eight that Gonzales and Card had to go to the hospital to try and take advantage of a sedated and medicated man who had given his authority for this program to his DAG. Hatch then goes through the membership of the Gang of Eight -- that it is a bi-partisan committee, and that the consensus (as in NOT EVERYONE) was to allow this to continue, again skating any dissent. [CHS notes: Someone should ask about Gang of Eight dissent, given Rockefeller's written memorialization of it to Cheney, among others.]
Gonzales now whining about having to follow the FISA laws that have been in palce for multiple Administrations and that attorneys all over the country along with investigators follow every day in terms of third-party review of subpoenas for surveillance. [CHS notes: Including in dinky little jurisdictions like the one in which I worked, where manpower was at a premium -- we still managed to fill out our paperwork properly and follow the law.]
Hatch goes into the attempted end-run of the Senate on appointments for USAttys. Will you get Senate advice and consent? [CHS notes: of course, Hatch fails to note that it was his former staffer that slipped that provision into the Patriot Act in the first place for the WH's benefit...but hey, who was expecting candor?] Gonzales says they will do so.
SEN. LEAHY: Could you not have taken 30 seconds or a minute to tell me that you wanted FISA amendments or updates? You know, I have a listed phone number. Gonzales says he thinks it's been communicated to staff...Leahy says he has a listed phone number, feel free to call me any time if it is that important to you.
SEN. FEINSTEIN QUESTIONS: I listened to both openings, and then I listened to your response, which was non-responsive. I don't think you understand the problems in terms of integrity in the department and what it means to the nation. You cannot tell me that you went to see Ashcroft for any reason other than to reverse what Comey's decision had been. Gonzales says yes, that's what we were trying to do -- if he'd been competent to make the decision. Feinstein makes the point that Ashcroft told you directly that Comey was in charge, and that they had to abide by that.
What I'd like to establish once and for all is who put the names of the USAttys on the list. Kyle Sampson was the "aggregator." Comey didn't even know the process was going on...and on and on. [CHS notes: Feinstein does a great job laying this all out. Hope someone pulls this clip.] Whoa pproved those names? Gonzales says that he ultimately approved the names on the list that was presented to me. How many names did you approve total? Seven on December 7th. I'll have to get back to you on that. Feinstein says "you don't know after all we've been through, hearing after hearing?" Gonzales says well, there were 7 on Dec. 7th to leave by January 15th. There were others who were asked to resign? Gonzales says yes. Cummins and Graves -- and there were others who were asked to leave because there was "legitimate cause." Feinstein says "so the others were asked to leave for illegitimate cause"?" Gonzales backs away from this, and says that no, what he means is egregious conduct, blah blah blah.
Read to you what has been dropped from the earlier addition of the DOJ manual. (1) restriction on bringing a voter fraud case close to an election. (2) Care for overt investigations in the pre-election period and while election is underway. "Most if not all prosecutions and investigations should await the end of the election." -- underlined in the prior volume -- has been removed. Reason for that was to not impact the election. Gonzales, predictably, has no idea what Feinstein is talking about and can't answer why those changes were made.
Feinstein says that this is relevent because two, possibly three, USAttys did no bring these small cases which could have impacted the elections. And when you look at the changes in the regs on this, something is rotten.
SEN. KYL QUESTIONS: Back to Guantanimo. [CHS says: The usual Kyl tactic of changing the subject continues...] Oh, look over there -- it's internet gambling and the NCAA. blah blah blah Sports need to be clean blah blah blah. Immigration and "criminal aliens"...blah blah blah.
SEN. CARDIN: I want to return to the USAtty issue. You have offere conflicting testimony as to who was responsible for the firings. We still dont' know how particular names got on the list. Going through the list of USATTys who were fired. Iglesias. Problems with local GOP establishment in NM. In Arizona, local GOP establishment not happy with Charlton. With LAM, not happy with the expansion of the investigation on Duke Cunningham. In Missouri, same thing -- we've spoken about that. What are we to think -- when you and the WH are not giving us answers without the assertion of executive provilege? [CHS notes: Can someone please bring up the fact that the President is obstructing an investigation into his own WH by improperly asserting a blanket executive privlege to cover his own aides and his own WH?] Gonzales says that he didn't put names on the list, but the names didn't surprise him -- he got recommendations from others. But fails to identify who put the names on the list. Cardin says if you don't know how the names got there, how can you tell me that they weren't put on for political reasons? Gonzales says that he's just certain that didn't happen, but that's being investigated and he can't really talk about it.
Cardin then gets into the Gang of Eight meeting. These are not public meetings, are they? Gonzales says no, that hasn't been talked about publicly, but Congress has been informed about some of this from the WH. They are not in open session. Those proceedings are kept confidential. Advice given are not made public. To the extent that there is an importance of confidence to Congress for maintaining a working relationship, it seems to me that you are making a very selective use of what you do or do not hold in confidence. You release information that you think you can use for your benefit and you withhold independent information that might lead us ultimately to the facts if it might be harmful to someone the WH is trying to protect.
Let's go to another area. Civil rights division hirings for career hires -- used to be they were reviewed by career attorneys. That was taken over by political appointees. I hope that you will go back to a non-partisan environment for hiring career appointees. We have had testimony, from Monica Goodling and others, that crosses the line in what is appropriate. Gonzales says he thinks they have taken those steps, but doesn't sound very sure.
SEN. GRASSLEY QUESTIONS: Puts a list of outstanding document requests in the record. WIll you personally assure that I will get the information that I have requested for oversight of the FBI? Gonzales says he'll personally assure that Grassley gets what he thinks is apporpriate for him to get. Grassley then goes on to the DOJ's failure to prosecute war profiteering cases.
True the DOJ has failed to prosecute at least 10 fraud cases? Gonzales says he doesn't know -- the fact that they decline doesn't mean they don't follow the case, and they closely monitor the case and may decide to intervene at a later time or follow an amicus. Grassley says that declination of intervention does seem to indicate that you are not prosecuting these cases. How many cases are under seal relating to Iraq fraud contractors? Gonzales says that yes, they do have some. Grassley asks about the DOJ trying to escape accountability by using the seal to mask conduct? Gonzales says no, they want to expose fraud and that keeping it hidden protects the interests of the US.
Grassley goes on to a Custer Battles case. [CHS notes: Gonzales' suit has massive shoulder pads today. It's an odd look -- a sort of Joan Crawford effect with the padding at the top.] Gonzales stalls on answering anything about the case.
BREAK
Quote from Sen. Leahy to reporters at the break:
"There is a greater morale problem at the department of justice than I have seen in 33 years in the Senate."
Am going to start a fresh thread...
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
BUTTERCHEEKS!
*victory dance*
Morning, Trex.
Is there a conflict of interest in that these Repugs are maybe involved with the K street scandals, so they’re happy to let this guy talk about baseball and the other crap? Why aren’t they mad that their power is being trampled on?
Kyl is trying to give Orrin a reach around partner. First a short speech about how wonderful Gitmo is then a lifeline and off topic by bringing up internet gambling and the wonderful DoJ work in that arena.
Kyle - internet gambling is bad, right?
Weak, weak, weak. Though it eats up time, I don’t think the D’s are gonna go for that shiny red herring.
Oh yeah - NBA gambling is bad too, right?
Objection - irrelevant.
After hearing after hearing it’s now easy to see how the game is played. Republicans try and distract and the Dems more concerned about comity roll over and beg to be scratched.
LOOK! LOOK! Shiny things!!!
WTF does this have to do with Fredo being a slimy douchebag?
Kyl - want more money???
Kyle, the waterboy for the Bush Crime Family.
Shocked to hear there’s gambling going on. Glad you’re working to stop it. You’re such a star.
GeorgeSimian @ 4
It’s like if as long as they get to keep their perks, they could care less about the power. At least until a Dem is in the WH.
well, at least the ‘thugs are scared enough that more than just specter showed up today. Of course, that means we have to listen to slimebuckes like hatch and kyl …
So far, the Gang of Eight detail to the Hospital visit has been the most interesting new information.
YUCKKKKK I just cannot listen to Kyl…… Kyl has been for the removal of habeas for years.
Ohhhh have to get those undocumented humans who are the BIG boogie monsters here in AZ…
GeorgeSimian @ 4
The Republicans do not care about Congress being a separate branch of the government because they believe that loyalty to Party is more important than loyalty to the instituion. Republicans do not believe in the Republic only the Party.
Arrrgh, off shore based Internet gambling addicted terrorists laundering money, straining our prisons, jails, courts, and police, require a new war on the same.
I love watching Berto testify, it’s like watching a feeble dog chase his tail
radiofreewill @ 13
and the change in the prosecutors manual to change the rules about voter “fraud” investigations to cover up what the loyal bushies did.
Bluetoe @ 15
Yeah, but it’s their power that’s being taken away!
Cardin (D-Md) - back to US Atty scandal.
quick question please;
if he is a recess appointment can leahey demand another recusal from this guy?
Cardin up and back on the firings. Asking “Who put the specific names on the list “agregated” by croc-a-Kyle”
Starts going down the list of each USA and what they were doing to p*ss off the local R establishment
one embarrassing thing is the way no one can pronounce iglesias … seems worth spending 30secs practicing …
radiofreewill @ 13
Abu parsed that term a couple committee hearings ago stating some nonsense about the “NSA Program ID’d by the NY Times program” to Feingold.
Aw. No porn or bongs ?
Cardin going over the USAs one by one and connecting the dots.
Pouty Abu taking notes. or drawing doodles.
Cardin pointing out that Republican interests were involved in every one of the USA firings.
Cardin now connecting the dots in the USA firings.
When are Schumer and Whitehouse up? They are the number 3 and the clean-up in our lineup. I think the rethugs showed up in force today to help run out the clock. They knew it wasn’t going to be pretty. This changing of the manual business sounds pretty damaging, if they can pursue it.
GeorgeSimian @ 19
They could care less. There power resides in the collective power of the Party. They could care less about the institution!
Get’em Cardin…bringing up all the ReTHUG corruption being investigated.
We have got to wipe the slate clean with all of these Republicans who refuse to question AbuGone properly today.
Abu is still trying to tap dance around who put the names on the list.
Cardin reminds him that the committee hasn’t talked to anyone in the WH.
Now, Cardin: who had the authority to put names on the list?
I did not accept recommendations for firings based on partisan political reasons.
Gonzo to Cardin: I did not put the names on the list. No one, as far as I know, put names on the list for partisan political reasons.
Oh yes
Abu: I assume the committee has spoken to everyone who could have put the names on the list.
Cardin: We didn’t talk to the White House
“that is correct that you don’t know who put the names on the list”. thanks gonzo …
It does not sound as if Abu has been as well prepped for this hearing–he is all over the map, stuttering and stammering. I wonder if he will be gone during Aug, with an interim appt made immediately???
Christy,
I know you are busy liveblogging and maybe someone else can answer this, but this from the earlier thread seems, on the surface, to be salient to me:
Did he really say that they didn’t rush to the hospital to get Ashcroft to sign off on the domestic spying program? If so, what were they trying to get him to sign off on? I get very suspicious when I hear this lawyer be so specific with words like “…the program the president announced to the American public.”
Comey said it was domestic spying. Gonzo said it wasn’t the program the president announced to the American public. Were there two domestic spying programs?
I missed the testimony unfortunately, so I didn’t see the context. If anyone can shed some light I’d be grateful.
I’m also still having my coffee, so forgive me for being obtuse if I’m missing something here.
Gonzo is saying that the Gang of Eight meeting has been noted to Congress before.
Why don’t they ask him why he would accept a recommendation to fire people and not know who made the recommendation? For all he knows the cleaning lady could have put the names on the list (no offence to cleaning ladies).
Whooo, he spoke today (gang of 8) of confidential meeting.
From the evil parallel universe…
There is a great new post at the Guardian, h/t EW.
Am I missing something. Did Feinstein just point out that the DOJ rules regarding prosecution of election crimes have been changed to make their prior actions legal, and to make it easier for them to manipulate elections?
Isn’t this really big????
Loo Hoo. @ 43
Bi-partisan bukakke?
-GSD
Cardin is giving him an escape route.
Damn, Cardin went to town on Berto like DeNiro with a baseball bat in Untouchables
GSD, not clear. Selective info at best.
Tuned in late, but seems to me Ds are extremely whimpy. Am I wrong?
where’s grassley going with this? doesn’t seem like this is supportive of gonzo …
digby @ 40
More than one, almost certainly. The parsing has been so tight. Feinstein has asked before about other stuff, with no real response. The only surprise is that it hasn’t leaked over the intervening months since Abu G started using ‘the specific program’ terminology.
There is Other Spying Shit going on, and I don’t think it’s unfair to presume that it’s more extensive — and more illegal — than the ‘terrorist calls’ stuff that Bush supposedly fessed up to.
Perhaps Ron Suskind is the person to ask?
digby @ 40
Yes. To see this weasel use an unnecessary specifier is watching a red flare go up. He’s practically advertizing that there are at least two objects behind the curtain. I would like a specific question to him on this point. He might continue to dance, or he might plead privilege, secrecy … who knows what.
eCAHNomics @ 50
I think they’re not wasting their time when it is obvious that Abu is lying and obfuscating and refusing to answer the simple questions. I think (hope and pray) that they’re letting him hang himself.
eCAHNomics @ 50
Not wrong to this point. Following the typical MO where comity reigns supreme.
Has Grassley turned on Abu too? He must be getting an earful in Iowa. All those Dems hiking over the prairie must be raising some awareness in the heartland.
digby,
I don’t think Comey’s testimony was direct in implying it was the NSA program that they were pushing on him. I’m sure Marcy remembers—she remembers everything. I do recall that there was a lot of questioning over the parsing of words making it very unclear what exactly they were trying to get Ashcroft to sign.
YMMV.
dakine01 @ 54
How many times have people said that? Instead of a thick cord rope they hand him a thin strand of spaghetti.
Grassley doesn’t like fraud and he’s going after Abu on their declining to join Iraq fraud cases.
Neil @ 44
Yeah! Go Marcy!
Bluetoe @ 58
Or, 20 lashes with a wet noodle.
Use of the Judicial seal to hide fraud in Irak?
dakine01 @ 59
Contractors/whistleblowers.
I have received two letters from Chuck lately with weaselly answers on habeous corpus as well as NSA and FBI letters to which I have called back twice. Grassley is in trouble in Iowa. Let’s run a progressive.
Sen. Grassley needs to ask, how many Iraq fraud cases have you prosecuted?
-GSD
Just a follow-up: while Comey never went into the details of what he was talking about–
–that it involved Mueller, and by extension the FBI, presumably makes it domestic. But it was clear enough to me when Comey testified that he was talking about Other Spying Shit, not the so-called TSP.
ETA: Comey’s written answers to Linda Sanchez also made it pretty clear that he didn’t have the liberty to discuss the substance with anything like the freedom that Abu has displayed towards the TSP.
Grassley, Abu can personally assure you of prompt attention, that doesn’t mean he’ll give it.
Grassley on contractors, fraud and abuse, and Iraq. Has dept. declined intervention in cases?
Abu: [BS answer]
Grassley: sounds like unwillingness to prosecute Iraq fraud cases
Abu: oh, no, we’re attentive [paraphrase] [more BS]
Grassley: any cases under seal relating to Iraq fraud?
Abu [?!?]
Grassley: is the dept trying to escape accountability by using seal as shield?
Abu: [more BS] Oh, no. Far from it.
Abu looks SHOCKED that Grassley is digging into whistleblowers & false claims in Iraq! LOL>
lee5 @ 51
No I think his beef is contracters and Iraq.
eCAHNomics @ 61
It takes a long time to get all the info when the admin is obstructionist. don’t forget that Nixon held on for two years stonewalling the whole way with a Dem controlled congress against him from the beginning. Here it’s just seven months worth of investigations just to get to this point w the Rs fighting all the way and no DoJ headed by Elliott Richardson/William Ruckelshaus.
For the most parts the Dems are doing good work. Leahy set a good tone. Suprisingly Specter played hardball. Feinstein was very good. Cardin was good. Kohl started slowly and off topic.
Brief recess.
Grassley for teh win
Look, just because Leahy doesn’t pull out a damn Colt .45 and start pistol-whipping AGAG doesn’t mean things aren’t happening.
It’s called “rule of law”, last time I checked. No summary judgements, much less executions. Yeah, we know Gonzales can’t be shamed into resigning — but he can forced out.
Jim Clausen @ 64
Amen! He is still voting lock step with the R’s on all of the Iraq war votes. Will Braley be ready for Prime Time by 2010?
Leahy playing school master. Heehee.
Where’s Schumer? And Whitehouse?
Leahy is tougher on the public than on Gonzo. Oh, that’s right it all about the comity.
Grassley can go back to Iowa and tell the folks that he held Gonzales’ cloved feet to the fire.
-GSD
How long a recess? Do I have time to shower?
Neil @ 72
specter hasn’t voted onanything yet … he does tend to talk a good game and then fold at the end.
I also liked leahy’s clear threats re perjury and contempt to gonzo at the end of his 1st round of questioning. that seemed to get gonzo’s attention.
IrishJim @ 76
I don’t have a problem with Grassley getting his arse kicked in the elections by a progressive. But if in the mean time Grassley wants to pursue fraud, I’m with that.
Phoenix Woman @ 75
I agree. By playing out the rope, Gonzo is surprisingly talkative today. He sure has a good memory when he wants to. Feinstein really unearthed a goody.
Woodhall Hollow @ 77
Where’s Schumer? And Whitehouse?
TexB @ 81
Probably
dakine01 @ 71
Exactly. The Democrats in Nixon’s time actually had it easier, because the Republicans weren’t as overtly corrupt and partisan as they are now. The Republicans who put country over party were purged by the Goldwater/Reagan/Viguerie goons in the post-Watergate era, and psychopaths now run both the GOP and the conservative movement.
IrishJim @ 76
I like him. When he has appeared in committee hearings he reminds me of a focused legal prosecuter.
RevDeb @ 57
revdeb - my memory of comey’s testimony is the same as yours. he was very careful not say which program was under discussion - but lots of people inferred it was the/a nsa spying program.
digby & firepups - i am recording the audio of this hearing, and will post it soon after the end of the hearing…. the audio of comey’s earlier testimony before the SJC is here. mp3s for your ipod.
comment went wonky.
Where’s Feingold?
Bad weather in SW Florida last night, I hear. Very bad lightning.
thank god for broadband. my cable network doesn’t carry c-span 3.
Anybody want to re-cap the round one take-aways?
Why would Gonzales be concerned with perjury or obstruction of justice? He is a War Criminal who, if brought to trial, is facing the death penalty. All of his other crimes are peanuts.
Leahey: His characterization is not consistent with my understanding…
Senator Hatch;
Your wives are fighting again. Please report to the Compound.
leahy: “I used to have respect for the DOJ. No basis for AGAG’s statement that everything is going well”. nice to get to eavesdrop on leahy talking to press during break.
Enjoying Leahy’s open mike during the break?
Leahy making remarks during the break- We have extraordinary men & women @ DOJ who are hanging in there, but morale right now is very low & those people are extremely frustrated…
A little more music to watch Gonzales’ testimony by:
Rage Against the Machine- Wake Up
I thought they were going to have votes at 10:20. Or are the Republicans obstructing again?
Not happy with some of the Dems who’ve spoken so far. Schumer, Whitehouse, and Feingold need to get their asses in there.
Side by side comparison of the revised manuals DiFi mentioned should be very damning. No?
Where is this going?
I think Leahy will refer contempt charges to the DC USA and when he declines to enforce it, go with inherent contempt.
RevDeb @ 57
Comey wouldn’t say what program it was. But it’s clear we’re talking the same program. AGAG should be indicted for perjury for his prior claims that there were no disagreements. And I do hope one of the Dem Senators realizes that’s basically what AGAG has admitted.
I hope Schumer’s in good form today. Whitehouse always is, but he tends to unpack the good stuff, not the softballs that only Schumer seems to hit solidly.
Leahy–no response to subpeanas, there WILL be contempt citations!
Wonder why the Pres would want to go down in history as having the most dysfunctional DOJ, and a record as having disdain for law enforcement!
Leahy saying to the press that if the witnesses (Miers and Bolten) don’t prove to be responsive then it’s likely contempt citations will be voted in both committees.
Folks, one liners just add to the server load and make Christy’s fingers ache even more.
Please think twice before hitting the submit comment button.
Thanks.
Can someone point me to the gang of 8 stuff?
took this opportunity to call schumer’s office and ask why he’s not there (things happen) and whether he is suporting habeas corpus yet(no) and that he should impeach the Ag-we need an AG who actually beleives in the law!
Re: Contempt.
I think we should be getting answers to our questions.
I’m not looking for some kind of a show trial. I’m one of the few that has NOT called for AG’s resignation, but why would W want to go down in history having the most dysfunctional justice system. It is a distain for law and order.
Re: programs. Leahey briefed only in classified meetings and unwilling to talk about it.
Phoenix Woman @ 86
Exactly. The Democrats in Nixon’s time actually had it easier, because the Republicans weren’t as overtly corrupt and partisan as they are now. The Republicans who put country over party were purged by the Goldwater/Reagan/Viguerie goons in the post-Watergate era, and psychopaths now run both the GOP and the conservative movement.
Lowell weicker!