Comments (29)

asdf wrote on May 10, 2007 11:44 AM:

Gonzales spoke with the head of the Civil Rights Division then Gonzales delivered hearsay testimony about the CR guy’s position. It was a convenient dodge, and a total waste of the Committee’s time.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 10, 2007 11:45 AM:

Yo FREDO! Don't be upset the bullets, blindfold and blockwall are all part of the process also . . . OR would you perfer a little time being questioned in a country whose name ends with -istan and a little lack o' habeas corpus before you go.

paul lukasiak wrote on May 10, 2007 11:57 AM:

I wish someone had pointed out that Graves was fired as part of the exact same "process" that resulted in the firing of the eight -- he appeared on a list, and got fired.

modmom wrote on May 10, 2007 11:59 AM:

I wish someone would ask about the lack of investigating "election fraud" (wide spread esp in swing states) while concentrating on "voter fraud" (not prevalent).

budfox wrote on May 10, 2007 12:06 PM:

Just up on the wires, AP writer Laurie Kellman espouses GOP talking points relating to the Gonzales hearings.

The MSM default position of giving the GOP's spin credibility continues. One wonders how apparent hacks like Kellman get their jobs.

budfox wrote on May 10, 2007 12:06 PM:

Just up on the wires, AP writer Laurie Kellman espouses GOP talking points relating to the Gonzales hearings.

The MSM default position of giving the GOP's spin credibility continues. One wonders how apparent hacks like Kellman get their jobs.

budfox wrote on May 10, 2007 12:07 PM:

Just up on the wires, AP writer Laurie Kellman espouses GOP talking points relating to the Gonzales hearings.

The MSM default position of giving the GOP's spin credibility continues. One wonders how apparent hacks like Kellman get their jobs.

Mark Richards wrote on May 10, 2007 12:18 PM:

I'll just add a comment for ALL of this.

Personally, I am sick and tired of his (Gonzo's) face and his prissy voice.

If he has rehearsed for anything, it was to be such a frigging irritant that we'd all be glad not to hear him any more.

Of course, the best way, is to be entirely rid of him.

Now, did I hear correctly: he was not put under oath today? If that's true, then it's clear the Democrats have finally caved in.

voodoo wrote on May 10, 2007 12:25 PM:

I wish someone would ask him about Frank Black and the Northern Marianas case that was abandoned...

Jose wrote on May 10, 2007 12:32 PM:

Off Topic but something I wanted to flag. I'm not able to access to Talking Points Memo at work. Has the blog been banned by SmartFilter?

bobh wrote on May 10, 2007 12:38 PM:

fINALLY someone asks him about the murder and mcKay's reason for being fired.

Sheesh only took two hours.

bobh wrote on May 10, 2007 12:40 PM:

notice how all the republics call him GENERAL

not attorney general

all of them do it.

as if that makes him respectable now.

and now they are employees terminated not appointees fired.

Rusty wrote on May 10, 2007 12:42 PM:

Go Mel Watt! See, we're not ALL troglodytes in NC. Too bad this apologist s#*thead is up now. I see intellectual property is the filibuster topic de jour. These guys are pathetic.

bobh wrote on May 10, 2007 12:50 PM:

"what do you know ag?"

hahah

Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 12:50 PM:

bobh:

If AG is "general" and w is "Commander Guy" I think we see more and more signs that we're heading toward fascism. (or are we there yet?)

All the signs. Now we know why they're keeping AG. He's the "general."

God help us!

Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 12:51 PM:

As the details of Gonzalez' selective memory problem volcanically explode to the stratosphere, I am puzzled by the larger, more general issues of attorney standards of condcut.

What happened to the leadersip of the American Bar Association [ABA]? One would think given the so-called "benefits" of a self-regulation, the ABA would have been marginally interested in doing credible peer reviews; or evaluating whether the DoJ Staff counsel reports to the DOJ OPR were consistent with the attorney standards of conduct.

I would hpoe the TPM community might provide some discussion, commentary, and insight into what might have gone wrong with the ABA peer reviews; and what the apparent reclessnes by the DOJ STaff counsel says about the leadership [or lack thereof] in the various ABA Practice areas.

I find it curious that there is a common pattern: White House legal, political, and public affairs coordinating on issues; and discovering the DOJ STaff counsel was, as DoD did with the Iraq WMD issues, spinning the issues. I would like to hear some discussion about how the lessons and insight of the US Attorney firing shed light on what the White House counsel's office 2001-2007 was or was not doing.

I would like to see some discussion on how these apparent breakdowns of legal competence in the American legal community -- as disclosed with the US Attorney firings in DoJ -- shed light on the larger legal oversight issues [ie failure of licensed attorneys to do their jobs/meet attorney standards of conduct] shed light on the other issues of rendition, NSA surveillance, NLs, RNC detentions, abuse, and the RNC retalation against the Iraq WMD issues -- Relying on the lessons of the DOJ STaff counsel memoranda in re US Attorney firings, RNC attorneys are connected to all these issues.

I take expection to anyone in the ABA, espcially its leadership in the practice areas who attempts to pretend that they have a "prviate" riate of action to keep the public silent about their alleged public malfeasance and alleged criminal activity: Failure to prevent war crimes. It appears the legal community has moved from their passive role of a legal advisor to something that amounts to aqn active planner, partipants, propagandadist, and key player in the effort to implement illegal warfare, prisoner abuse, and war crimes.

The lesson I take from the US Attorney firings is the legal ovresight process failured. It is foolishness to argue that the legal oversight in other issues -- which may or may not have been lawfully classified -- was better. This is absurd. Some, if not many, attorneys in the American legal profession more than knew something was going on: They appare to have been active planners, players, and not mere legal advisors. I would hope that these facts surface and can be couched in terms the voters can digest; if the voters, as with impeachment, are asked to vote but say, "OK to war crimes," we need to consider what needs to be done to ensure the american lawyers are doing their jobs, not making exuses to put their legal profession before the Constitution. I am not confident legal counsel inthe RNC and DNC will do this.

Given Gonzalez apparent perjury, conflicting statements, and aparent plan to circumvent the Constgtutional appointment requirements with the Patriot Act, I challenge the TPM community to put the responsibilty on the legal community with the following questions:

A. What is the ABA plan to meet their attorney standars f conduct; to show that they will credible oversee their profession and not let this abuse of public trust of legal counsel to occur

B. What lessons might the TPM community glean from the 1929 stock crash, and 1933/34 market reforms --related to auditor and fiduciariy oversight -- might be applied to the legal profession in 2007 to ensure they are federally regulated, not marginally reviewed as they are done under state control?

C. What credible enforcement mechanism,s oversight, auditing, and sampling of attorney work products is required to ensure that American legal counsel are complying with their public obligations, especially as it relates to their work on public issues related to war crimes, abuse of power, the Constitution.

D. What is the status of the state-level attorney discpilinary board reviews of the DOJ and White House counsel involved with the US Attorney firigns; and the larger legal issues of rendition, prisoner abuse, NSL violations, illegal warrants, NSA abuses, warrantless surveillance?

E. What happened to the ABA peer reviews on the issues of prisoner abuse, rendition, FISA violations, NSL abuse: WHo was supposed to have been doing them; where are these reports; why have they not been filed; and what is the DC Disciplinary Board's plan to review counsel formeyl assigned to the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel on issues of prisoner abuse, NSL violations, illegal warfare, and FISA violations?

F. For purposes of insurance purposes, attorney peer reviews in the legal profession need to be something that are ongoing to mitigate problems; not arrive after the fact. What does the ABA have, as a plan today, to resolve their aparent credbilyt problem, outline a reform plan for their practice areas, and come to grips with some clear statements of what failed to occur on issues of counsel reviews in re FISA violations, rendition, prisoner abuses?

G. I would hade to think that reports of malfeasance have been buried in private settlements. How may private settlements have there been between legal counsel and public commenters to keep quiet about the concerns with alleged legal counsel involvement, or failure to remove themselves, from illegal war ccrims planning, propaganda efforts, and decisions not to enforce the law?

I must admit that I find it baffling that this abuse of power under this President -- as measured by rendition, US attorney firings, illegal warfare, prisoner torture/abuse -- continues, yet the legal community has not taken a serious look in the mirror. I would hope the TPM community, as they read the details of Gonzalez' selective memory problems on the apparent illegal violations of the Constiutional appointment process consider what failed in the American legal community; and what needs to be done to ensure this does not happen again.

I am troubled by the US Attorney firings not simply because of the apparent circumvention of the Constution with the Patriot Act; but what the conduct says about what American legal counsel appear to have been actively or passively enabling within their profession. This, in my view, suggests there is a breakdown of discipline, self-governance, and professionalism within the American legal community.

The leadersihp problem in the legal community seems widespread; and this President seems to have enabled recklessness in the legal community because the legal community appears to have been complicit with his Geneva violations. Leadership failures in the ABA cannot credibly be argued to be isolated to one area: It appears, in my view, to cross all practice areas, especially in the Administrative Law areas.

Thank you for considering my concerns about the apparent breakdown of self-governance in the American legal community; and how the US Attorney firings shedss some light into what problems there are with overseeing DoJ and White House counsel on issues of war crimes, Constutional violations, NSL abuses, and FISA violations.

bordersmuggler wrote on May 10, 2007 12:54 PM:

Maxine Waters:

"What DO you know, Mr. Attorney General?"

"Your reputation is on the line, Mr. Attorney General. What do you have to say for yourself?"

You go girl!!!

Susan Leboff wrote on May 10, 2007 12:55 PM:

good for maxine waters. ordinarily not my favorite congressperson but somehow she is able to elicit yes or no questions from gonzo whereas no other democrat can manage that. she's a first class questioner, most of the others are not.

Rusty wrote on May 10, 2007 12:56 PM:

Someone ring the bell, it's the first Republican that isn't a bootlicker.

Funny how he knows all the answers to the intellectual property questions, but studders, bobs, and weaves when he gets a real question.

Rusty wrote on May 10, 2007 12:57 PM:

I stand corrected.

Damian wrote on May 10, 2007 1:04 PM:

What about the suspect delegation of authority issue and plausible deniability? Buehler? Anyone? Hello!

kspena wrote on May 10, 2007 1:23 PM:

Thanks for your coverage. I'd suggest putting up Maxine Waters' comments: "What do you know?" Wonderful moment.

Bushrod McCorkle wrote on May 10, 2007 1:27 PM:

Like Atrios says, "Oh my"!
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070510nj1.htm

jt wrote on May 10, 2007 1:30 PM:

I have the C-span3 video up but I'm just listening. But it sort of amuses me that I can tell when a repug is up for questioning because they always start with a kiss ass statement about how great AG is........ But only sort of amusing

kspena wrote on May 10, 2007 1:39 PM:

Susan, I agree that Maxine was very efficient in cutting off Gonzalez. I listened for how she did that. What I noticed is that she used the term "OK", and did so by enunciating the "K" as a gun shot. That just stopped Gonzalez and she quickly moved on to the next question.

Tom Spencer wrote on May 10, 2007 1:48 PM:

But Graves did sign the lawsuit! Graves's name is on the lawsuit! Why do people keep repeating that? He may have resisted the suit early on but ultimately he signed the lawsuit thus making him a party to it. Why doesn't anyone seem to know that?

For more on this, go to this url:

http://www.correntewire.com/questions_persist_on_graves_and_the_voter_purge_lawsuit

TheraP wrote on May 10, 2007 2:20 PM:

Now I'm fascinated with what the AG is called - by different people.

At DoJ he is reputedly called "Judge."

House of Rep people call him "General."

Seems this is one guy who needs to be stroked.

Then again, if a strong woman, says "O-KAY!" he sits up and listens.

Put this all together. If he ends up in Gitmo, he should be questioned by a WOMAN - who does not use any terms which suggest he has authority.

There is much to be learned here.

Sharon A wrote on May 10, 2007 7:39 PM:

Oh, okaaaay...the justice department should have gone after individual districts instead of the Sec of State. I see. What a pity we never saw this sort of dedication in looking up the Florida Sec of State's skirt...as in, Katherine Harris. Oh, wait a minute, Ms. Scary Make-up was a good little voter-role purger.

Annette wrote on May 11, 2007 12:01 PM:

Somewhere, and for the life of me I cannot find it again, in the first batch of documents released, it was said in an email that there were indeed nine AGs fired instead of eight.
That's why they said the number was "under 10".
Any way to search the docs for that??