Comments (18)

Arkansan wrote on May 10, 2007 11:09 AM:

Q. Mr. Attorney General, you have testified that you don’t recall the who, how or when names were placed on the targeted list. Based on those assertions, how is it possible for you to know improper decisions were made by others in the process?

And make him answer.

frankly0 wrote on May 10, 2007 11:53 AM:

"I think I may be aware of that"??

I guess he has to consult with his other personality, "Bad Al".

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

Anyone notice the knee-jerk circling of the wagons around Jerry Lewis when Sanchez brought up his name? She evidently hit a very sensitive nerve.

We need to find out more about the Yang resignation. $1.5 million is serious walking money. She was putting the squeeze on someone big (as in big $ for the Republican coffers).

ahem wrote on May 10, 2007 12:29 PM:

"I think, to the extent of the recollection of the knowledge in my mind at the time, that I couldn't remember recalling what took place."

As for Lewis, they don't like it up 'em.

caligirl wrote on May 10, 2007 12:44 PM:

this hearing is a farse. so far I don't see criminal charges for the 'maybe I know, maybe I don't know' AG.

sc goat, fredo is the pResidents pet goat.

Blue Patriot wrote on May 10, 2007 12:44 PM:

What that means is: "I will remember that if you already know that I know it. If it isn't in the documents, I haven't the foggiest..."

Ship this POS to prison for contempt of congress, already. This is offensive.

Mike Valentine wrote on May 10, 2007 12:59 PM:

Impeach the Attorney General. He's just too stupid to go on.

Eric wrote on May 10, 2007 1:54 PM:

He doesn't know who put the list together, but he accepted it. I got a list for AG too, do you think he'll accept it?

Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 10, 2007 2:02 PM:

Fredo the fuck-up is obsuring with the obtuse . . . I'm mot saying he ain't srupid BUT at this time he is performing the job he was hired for (not the one he gets paid for but the one King Whore-for-Hay wants him to do). It is a misstake to blame any of their fascist plutocratic power grab on imcompetence or stupidity. That is their excuse. That is their cover. Provide them with no cover.

ttc wrote on May 10, 2007 2:02 PM:

republicans appear to have been very hastily briefed as follows: 1)persistently change the subject. 2)attack. 3)its now officially ok to talk about voter fraud as a reason for the firings. frame it positively: we need to do something about the bad problem of voter fraud and firing these people was good because they weren't doing enough about this bad problem.

republicans not collectively savvy enough to realize that all their attack on Linda Sanchez did was keep the subject on possibly corrupt Congressman Lewis.

My hypothesis: if it is now ok to talk about voter fraud, it is a smokescreen, there's got to be something far far worse that it is not ok to talk about.

elrapierwit wrote on May 10, 2007 2:16 PM:

TTC

I agree there is something far more sinister afoot than voter fraud...voter fraud is the smokescreen for the outright stealing of elections that the GOP has perfected.

Let's not forget that the tallying of votes for the state of OHIO was done on the same server and computers that the GOP used in KY.

THAT's the real issue here...American elections are now being outright stolen...every since 2000

Bush was NEVER elected by the American people to be President.

thedeanpeople wrote on May 10, 2007 2:36 PM:

For our younger viewers, this is textbook Reaganautics.

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.

"One thing still upsetting me, however, is that no one kept proper records of meetings or decisions. This led to my failure to recollect whether I approved an arms shipment before or after the fact. I did approve it; I just can't say specifically when."

-----

You see in the end, faith-based unitary executive theory teaches us that not getting caught in a lie is no different than telling the truth in the first place.

The message here is: "Push Off, Fuzz. We don't stop chuckling until we're staring down a double-barrel impeachment. Until then we're just gonna get back to picking out high-security drapes for the new Texas Lie-Bury. And there's not a damned thing you can do about it."

Got it now?

http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/historicspeeches/reagan/irancontra.html

--

Eric wrote on May 10, 2007 2:41 PM:

Thank you Rep. Hank Johnson D-GA! So let me get this straight Mr. AG. You gave the power of hiring and firing of career and pol. appt. within the DOJ to 2 young leagally inexperienced political appointees and accepted all of their reccomendations without any review. Nice!
Now explain to me again Mr. AG why the decisons to fire these 9 prosecutors wasn't political.

buckles wrote on May 10, 2007 3:17 PM:

That comment was a nice "aha" moment. He knows who made the list, and he knows he screwed up with his comment.

He reminds me of a little dog protecting his master. Doesn't matter how much little Fredo will get kicked, he'll always be there to lick George's hand.

I got sick of the voter fraud crap from the Republicans. It's all been proven to be B.S. -- they don't seem to realize CSPAN viewers know this. And, oh thank you, thank you, thank you General Gonzales. General?

mike wrote on May 10, 2007 3:29 PM:

I bow to no one in my dislike for Bush and the A.G., but I think what he said is "I may know that on the basis of my review of the document..." with the implication that he may know that by some other means, such as direct recollection.

He's basically equivocating about how he knows something, not whether he knows it. Call it "defensive epistemology."

Twisting his words to make them seem worse than they are really doesn't help the case.

He's an evasive pusillanimous SOB, an errand boy for a fascist regime... but I can't get too worked up about that little remark.

Mary wrote on May 10, 2007 6:10 PM:

If the law firm didn't pay Yang, and if she ended up with 1.5M, wouldn't that raise "even more bigger" questions?

py wrote on May 10, 2007 7:25 PM:

unfortunately, he "again" performed brilliantly for a dissembler. no way this cypher deviates from the "PLAN" that has congress either falling all over each other, slobbering with rage, or grinning in supplication or simply giving up. a "PLAN" that has the "free" press discombobulated and the entire federal government on alert for more big, BIG shoes to drop on more oversight proceedings across the board.

it is in the "gumming" stage at the moment, but there will be no more R party after the long oversightful haul through the fetid morass of filth called the bush "administration" is complete. this is just the beginning, folks, the "PLAN" (drawn up by fiends to be sure) has just begun.

you can't stop it, but don't stop trying. as for you, joe and jane citizen, better git yer marchin' boots on, time to storm the gates!

code: memory, at least SOMEone has one!

SF fan wrote on May 10, 2007 7:47 PM:

"I think I may be aware of that. I can't remember what's actually reflected in the documents."

So, if it's in the documents that we decided we wouldn't hold back, I may conveniently recall what happened, but if it's not in the documents...fuggedit. I ain't admitting a thing. And Congress puts up with this?