Comments (38)

DonQ wrote on April 19, 2007 10:59 AM:

Hatch is going through a carefully rehearsed dialogue with Gonzales. What a charade.

Brandon Liberati wrote on April 19, 2007 11:02 AM:

It looks like Gonzo is keeping to his old tactic of either deflecting the questions or minimizing his role. He is obviously lying, by his demeaner, posture and voice, but I'm skeptical any truth is going to come out to nail him. If his voice got any higher he could sing Boy Soprano. I hope Schumer and Feinstein can nail him. Right now, I'm not so sure the Dems can take him out.

swamp thing wrote on April 19, 2007 11:02 AM:

Hatch has reptillian DNA.

FGF wrote on April 19, 2007 11:02 AM:

I'm watching the Hatch "questioning" now.
They should get a room.

Blue Patriot wrote on April 19, 2007 11:04 AM:

Hatch is such a condecending dick, even when he's on your side.
Damn, I need another shower after listening to that @ssh@t.

Rusty wrote on April 19, 2007 11:04 AM:

Man, Hatch make me want to puke. They better step this up. They need to get pointed and specific in their questions. There has been way to much vaguery thus far. I'm very disappointed so far.

Brandon Liberati wrote on April 19, 2007 11:05 AM:

Senator Brownback did the same thing as Hatch, go through a tired exercise of trying to bolster Gonzo's story. I'm amazed Arlen has found come balls finally. Hatch is such a Bush ass-licker that no one should be surprised that just crap comes out of his mouth.

Jock Strap wrote on April 19, 2007 11:05 AM:

That unctuous Senator, Horrid Snatch, R-Utah is leading his witness through a series of softball questions and nauseating most watchers in the process.
Secret word, meat....as in Gonzo is dead meat after this public airing.

chimpeach wrote on April 19, 2007 11:06 AM:

"...the U.S. attorneys are important, he allowed, but 'this institution is built to sustain change.'"

That would explain why they felt comfortable replacing seasoned professionals with inexperienced political hacks. But, it would seem to fly in the face of their 'performance-related' argument for firings.

Anonymous wrote on April 19, 2007 11:07 AM:

Removing the USA will not affect prosecutions? WTF is Gonzalez talking about? Is he high?

Before the Clintons replaced Bush I holdovers during the transition, they examined the caseloads to make sure they could replace the USA without disrupting any cases. I believe a number were phased in later b/c the existing USA had a major case in late stages.

This makes no sense on its face. Look at Carol Lam--she made damn sure indictments came down before she left office.

Anybody here work in the US Atty's office? Anybody care to smack down this drivel? Gonzalez is STILL lying, and he's digging his own grave.

LGA wrote on April 19, 2007 11:10 AM:

If someone has an idle moment, I'd appreciate a count of the number of times today Gonzo says "I don't recall" and "I don't remember."

Anonymous wrote on April 19, 2007 11:10 AM:

If the senators know better about what goes on in his office than he does, then by definition, he should not retain his job. If this was Janet Reno, the Republican Senators would have already executed her.

tbhull wrote on April 19, 2007 11:12 AM:

So far the Democratic Senators have proven that they are feckless. Specter is the best at getting to him.

These bloated DC types are too busy worrying about where the party is tonight. Time to clean house in DC, dems as well.

DonQ wrote on April 19, 2007 11:12 AM:

LGA: there's even one instance of "I don't recall remembering..."!

nellieh wrote on April 19, 2007 11:12 AM:

What an incompetent toady. Code word "jump." Exactly what Gonzales does when Bush tells him. His response, "how high?"

eric wrote on April 19, 2007 11:16 AM:

I am looking forward to the questions from Sheldon Whitehouse. He has done well in the past.

Security Code:
cold

Anthony wrote on April 19, 2007 11:17 AM:

I wonder if this question will get asked? Does anyone know why these Attorney Generals were fired? If the Attoney General doesn't know and the Chief of staff doen't know, and the Asst Attorney Generals don't know, then who does? And what kind of operation are they running at DOJ if no one there knows and the records can be located or don't exist? Maybe they were looking in the wrong building?

No one seems to know why, No one seems to have kept the records you would expect to be kept in regards to this type of action.

TorranTony wrote on April 19, 2007 11:18 AM:

Gonzales is not credible in the statement about Chiarra, saying it was in part because of a demonstration of "poor judgement," and "office management/morale" issues, when the person with the biggest problem in that office was someone who was on the list of possible replacements, and also referred to her boss as "Miss Margret" (a condescending term in this case, ie. poor judgement, and yet that person was listed as a credible replacement!).
Gonzales is also trying to act like he was not too involved with the firings, this actually indicates that he still identifies himself as a partisan force in the department, that's why he seems so weak on this. He can not answer the concern,
"What steps did you take as AG to ensure these personnel moves were in the interest of the American people, and that the moves were credible and transparent?"

John S wrote on April 19, 2007 11:18 AM:

Perhaps Gonzales would like to comment as to how, when Assistant USA's drew up indictments against state officials who were sexually abusing children at juvenile detention facilities in Texas, they.were.required. to get approval from "higher ups" to pursue the indictments and were denied permission. Sounds like there is a "significant" level of involvement and that changing USA's would definitely cause a problem, especially if the new USA was a party hack.

Anthony wrote on April 19, 2007 11:20 AM:

And what kind of operation are they running at DOJ if no one there knows and the records can't be located or don't exist?

Sholom wrote on April 19, 2007 11:21 AM:

Anthony -- nice "bottom line" question. Awesome.

Is there anyone who "knows anyone important" who can get that question to one of the Committee members?

Pleas

(Secy code: body -- as in: let's find the "body" who knows, and get him in here for questioning)

dbf wrote on April 19, 2007 11:22 AM:

Feinstein now. She is pressing on the Carol Lam firing but she has the wrong angle. The point is not, "Why didn't anyone tell her she was underperforming before she was fired?" - this gets into management nitty gritty, where Gonzalez is happily ensconced - clearly he will be spending much of the day with a s**t-eating grin as Senators accuse him of poor management.

The much-superior question is: "How are we supposed to believe this story that she was fired for immigration issues when no one ever evaluated her as performing poorly on immigration - rather, your own office supported her against local congressmen, including disgraced Rep. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham, when they complained about her priorities?"

"Why should we not infer the obvious conclusion that Carol Lam was fired for pursuing, and convicting, corrupt Republicans and Defense contractors?"

TorranTony wrote on April 19, 2007 11:23 AM:

AG AG= Gerorge Costanza working on the "Penske" file... (look up the Seinfeld episode non-fans...)

;)

Code word "step" as in "Step away from the job Alberto..."

Brandon Liberati wrote on April 19, 2007 11:24 AM:

One great question was the one about WHO put the language in the Patriot Act about circumventing the Senate on confirmations. And Gonzo said he still APPROVES of that because "he doesn't want the Senate telling him who to staff his office!". Hello, that is a clear circumventing of the constitution and the process. This guy has to go!

Feinstein got him very close to breaking on the Carol Lam issue, though he is sticking to his testimony that she was fired over "immigration and gun cases". Feinstein needs to ask how her replacement is going to do better in these areas.

Texboy wrote on April 19, 2007 11:27 AM:

I have repeatedly heard it said these US Attorney's "serve at the pleasure of the President." Since all were appointed by the current President, at what point was the President did the President express a need to evaluatge the performance of his appointees, was he ever consulted about the evaluation or the decision to aske for resignations? Does the White House staff and or Attorney General have this authority to act without consulting the President or to exercise his authority on their own?

jan wrote on April 19, 2007 11:28 AM:

Why are CEOs held accountable for every detail of their company - but the US Attorney General is not accountable for the DOJ? Why is the USAG allowed to apologize for his mistakes (er, misinformation) but others go to prison for lying?

bobh wrote on April 19, 2007 11:30 AM:

And CNN still cant get that gun maniac off the front page fo their website.Sheesh.

eightnine2718281828mu5 wrote on April 19, 2007 12:25 PM:

---
"this institution is built to sustain change."
---

Well, I for one am mighty glad to hear that. Yessir, that's an excellent point, Mr. Gonzales, and one the Senators should keep in mind when reviewing your status at the DOJ.

evie wrote on April 19, 2007 6:23 PM:

code: porter

I know it's off thread, but OMG - can Porter Goss be far behind in scandaland?

nikolas@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 10:08 AM:

functions of the penis and scrotum

nikolas@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 10:09 AM:

functions of the penis and scrotum

richard@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 9:25 AM:

Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra

richard@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 9:26 AM:

Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra

clar@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 10:46 PM:

Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra

witney@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 2:12 AM:

hello

sophy@aol.com wrote on May 23, 2007 9:30 AM:

buy viagra

mlgkwyx tobcpyrj wrote on June 6, 2007 8:19 AM:

lvhfrudax anqy yzcej cqrjd aiqjslo owxefrjq pxirztqf

mlgkwyx tobcpyrj wrote on June 6, 2007 8:21 AM:

lvhfrudax anqy yzcej cqrjd aiqjslo owxefrjq pxirztqf