I would ask that the chair admonish the witnesses to air on the side of being responsive as opposed to constantly quibbling over word choice because I've never seen it to the degree I've seen it today.

This is the equivalent of classic deposition weaseling by the witnesses, with the added incentive here of, as Davis notes, running the clock. When you say what time is it, what do you mean by "time"?

Bad faith, is what it is. (I know, shocking.)

I just wish with all my being that these were war crimes trials, not Congressional hearings.

This post is not a fair characterization of Yoo's question. Yoo has no role in "implementation of the momo." What is implementation of the memo anyway?

The memo just says what the legal council thinks the law says. The memo was taken in advisement or not is a more appropriate question and even that can not be answered by Yoo because he would not know that unless someone comes back to him for clarifications or such. That is exactly where the line of questioning finally went to and then Yoo invoked whatever that is he invoked.

IMO,the congressmen can really do nothing here. Well, he should have been better prepared.

Here we go again. It's time for those that do nothing all day but legal wordsmithing to act as if they have no grasp whatsoever of the plain meaning of words. They're utilitize the same playbook that all criminal Repubs have before them by stalling by pretending not know what words mean, going in to minutiae to run out the question clock or claim executive privilege. I really wish these comittees had some actual teeth to imprison these felons.

Lawyers who know they are guilty of being accessories to war crimes are likely to quibble over word choice when testifying before Congressional committees.

Ugh.

It's no exxageration to say Yoo would make a good nazi. He's the epitome of post hoc rationalization combined with the overriding urge to lick his master's boots.

Look at the beginning where he says he "has to" assert a privilege and can't answer questions, because he's been "instructed to" by his masters at the DoJ.

When asked what privilege he's asserting, he's clueless, and it must be explained that his "instructions" aren't a legal basis for avoiding questioning. Eventually he decides it might be attorney-client privilege.

That's John Yoo's legal mind, in a nut shell.

How can this clown be a law professor?

"Attorney-client privilege"? The weasel worked for us, we're the damn client! His counsel cannot be privileged from us.

The next administration should withhold all funds from Stanford until this torture-excusing traitor is fired. Then we should seek his disbarment for malpractice.

If the Congress wants to get anything out of these two, they will have to warterboard them!

There should be a movement to get this advocate of child sexual torture fired from UC Berkeley. He is a sick pervert who has no business being involved in the legal profession in any way. The very idea that he is a law professor while being wide open for war crimes charges is an absolute disgrace.

Can't David Addington be electrocuted or hit by a bus, on TV, so we can all watch in horror which then turns to joy. for him to not exist would be bliss. what a thing. he makes me ill. but i'll get over it.