Comments (62)

Crust wrote on May 10, 2007 3:35 PM:

Interesting that Gonzales said "it was my understanding or belief" not the more idiomatic "it was my understanding *and* belief". Sometimes the little things are telling of the thought process: he's trying to commit to as little as possible.

Steve wrote on May 10, 2007 3:48 PM:

It's the rope-a-dope approach, but that only works when you can come out strong in the late rounds. The Senate's not going to let that happen. Either they'll find a smoking gun, or they'll make his life so miserable it'll be as if Brownie had stuck it out. Heckuva job.

Woodhall Hollow wrote on May 10, 2007 3:49 PM:

Wexler's questions brought more out on this point as well. I thought it might have been a perjury trap. He backed Gonzales into a corner making him say over and over again that this or that person did not add Iglesias' name to the list. And that he didn't know who did. It seemed like he had read the Waas article--and knew that withheld documents would show that Gonzales is lying through his teeth.

P J Evans wrote on May 10, 2007 3:50 PM:

Can we get someone on the committee to remind him that lying to congress is a crime? To tell him that perjury is an impeachable offense ('Clinton did it!' may be of benefit here)? To suggest that if he can't remember what he did, and who he delegated his work to, that he might want to look for a job that's less demanding (I'd suggest dogcatcher in Van Horn, TX, but they might want someone competent)?

Bloix wrote on May 10, 2007 3:54 PM:

"It was my understanding or belief" - he first says "understanding," then changes it to "belief." Why? Because if you have an "understanding" you "understand" something that you've been told. So "understanding" implies that he was advised. That is subject to check - who advised you, etc. He moves to "belief" because "belief" is entirely internal.

Every single utterance from this man's mouth is designed to mislead without saying something that is provable perjury.

everywoman wrote on May 10, 2007 3:57 PM:

The term that Gonzales used was, "it could have been more vigorous" (not rigorous). I thought I mis-heard him, but he said it two or three times during one line of questioning.

But yeah, you gotta love that "secret collaboration" technique, where the people who are collaborating with you do not know they are doing so, nor for what reason they are being consulted. Sure, whatever, works for me. That's how I want *my* Justice Department run... not.

PrahaPartizan wrote on May 10, 2007 3:58 PM:

Next to the picture of Gonzales in the dictionary you'll see a word: "weasel", it begins with "w".

Rusty wrote on May 10, 2007 4:02 PM:

Go Wasserman Schultz! Glad to see these questions out in public at long last.

Mysterious Traveler wrote on May 10, 2007 4:03 PM:

This guy ain't going nowhere.

He knows after he leaves office he'll be lucky to get a job anywhere except the rubber chicken circuit.

Independent wrote on May 10, 2007 4:06 PM:

This is such a sad, tawdry affair that the temptation is to pass some sort of judgment on it and to move on. But that would be a mistake. If let off the hook, this profoundly unethical and lawless administration will only be encouraged to redouble its reprehensible activities.

biggerbox wrote on May 10, 2007 4:13 PM:

The advantage of a 'super-secret double-collaborative process' is that it perfectly explains how there could be no evidence of a collaborative process among senior DOJ people having actually occurred.

Only a couple of the collaborators actually knew they were collaborating in this collaborative process! In the words of the Guiness ad: Brilliant!

But we should accept that it happened, because Gonzo says it did.

Or that he it was his belief that it did.

Or that he had no reason to believe that it didn't.

Or whatever his latest position is. It's hard to keep track.

xargaw wrote on May 10, 2007 4:14 PM:

This is so sad to watch. The bar in this country has been lowered to beyond shameful. I keep waiting for someone in one of these hearings to stand up in the middle of the preceedings and just scream. The time for decorum is long past. It is time for a little rage and a demand for the truth.

Mike Valentine wrote on May 10, 2007 4:24 PM:

If Mr Gonzales wouldn't come clean then it's got to be......

Impeachment for the Atty. General.

Impeachment for the Vice President.

Impeachment for the President.

Impeachment for the 30% of the cool aid drinkers who still support Bush and this war.

code; Same, as in ...... same old sheep dip.....

Rusty wrote on May 10, 2007 4:29 PM:

One odd thing about that last round of questions: it seems like the AG and DOJ is putting a great deal of effort into fixing the problems with Paulose USA office. They have warned her, sent an investigator, and are giving her a chance to "fix" the problems with her office. Does anyone else find this a little bit odd - considering they did not give any of this evaluation/feedback/observation to the 9 USA's?

I guess this isn't a surprise - but just another hole in the sequence of events that you could drive a Freightliner through.

Sigh.

maildls wrote on May 10, 2007 4:32 PM:

This mess infects everything the DOJ does. For example, just weeks before the last mayoral election cycle in Philly, Patrick Meehan got a warrant to bug Mayor Street's office. ( A Democrat ). The bug was discovered just before the election. Now, given the sterling reputation of Patrick Meehan, and the less than sterling reputation of John Street, no serious person questioned whether it was political. But now? I mean, this messes with everything.

mayan wrote on May 10, 2007 4:38 PM:

They need an independent counsel or prosecutor to investigate ALL of the charges that are being extruded by these perps.

How high is the bar for getting one appointed in this case? Isn't there enough competent evidence to sustain the burden of a request? It's clear that the conflicts of interest are so rife and the charges so significant that this would seem to be the only course of action.

El Borba wrote on May 10, 2007 4:39 PM:

I agree with Woodhall Hollow. Wexler’s questioning was some of the sharpest and caused the most squirming. However, maybe Rep. Wexler was inspired by Paul K’s own “Who Dunnit?” in Muckraker, May 4, 2007, 2:11 PM (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003153.php)!

Frederick wrote on May 10, 2007 4:44 PM:

My guess as far as Paulose in Minn. is concerned, giving her a chance to fix the problems means she would likely turn on the Justice Dept. if they tried to
fire her. She probably has some very incriminating
things to say.

Nestor wrote on May 10, 2007 4:48 PM:

What kind of chumps does Gonzales think he's talking to? Does he really expect anyone to believe there's a valid process for getting firing recommendations that doesn't inform the recommender before hand?

This is the most damning by far... he is either too incompetant to be dogcatcher, or is corrupt as hell. You pick 'em.

TheraP wrote on May 10, 2007 4:49 PM:

Just doing my thing here: You have to ask, why would a person continue to go before cameras and make of fool of himself, over and over - unless he has some masochistic streak? Think about it, some people PAY to be abused. This guy is doing it while getting PAID - as a high government official. He's doing it in front of cameras.

One has to wonder: is this a person who has risen so far above his expectations, the he has to abase himself and shame himself and become a fool on national tv - to somehow equalize his rise with the degradation he feels inside?

Please, Mr. AGAG - go somewhere else and let them abuse you. Why should WE have to witness your masochistic self-abasement? Or is doing it in public your thing?

OMG - the word is "screw!"

Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 4:51 PM:

Why bother to inform those with whom you're consulting if you're going to ignore their advice anyway? The DoJ consults the same way Bush consulted with the generals before the war and with congress now.

TomInMaine wrote on May 10, 2007 4:55 PM:

Okay, we have had hearing after hearing with this Bozo, I get the same sick feeling in my gut with watching or listening to this idiot that I do when ever Bush comes on.

Enough is enough, it is obvious that congress is getting played the fools yet nothing is moving forward, like all bad things that happen, the American people want closure, they want this idiot gone and most certainly want Bush and Cheney gone as well.

What is going to happen next, is congress finally going to move on these people or are we just going through the motions with these show trials?

Is there anything that individuals can do to get congress off of top dead center?

mark ettinger wrote on May 10, 2007 4:59 PM:

I am at a loss and totally igorant of the legalities. So I ask any of you attorneys to educate me.

Gonzales was asked at his recent visit to the Senate how the fired attorney names got on the "to fire" list that he approved. The Senators were aghast that, despite his assertion that he had prepared for the visit, he had no knowledge of the "how, who, and why."

Today, before the House, he was asked the same questions. Whereas his answer of choice before the Senate was "I don't recall," he assiduously avoided that response today. He found satisfactory alternates. To all questions concerning or related to "the list" his reply was, "I haven't spoken about it to any of the parties involved because I am a 'fact witness,' they are all fact witnesses, and I have to respect the integrity of the investigation."

Now, Gonzales is the boss. No one outside the circle of his underlings who prepared the list---adding and subtracting names for unknown and unexplained reasons---can provide any information.

My question: Is it the case that Gonzales is forbidden by law to ask questions of his staff when he is summoned by Congress to provide the answers to those questions?

uncle vester wrote on May 10, 2007 5:03 PM:

TheraP-

Remember, it's only masochism if it hurts. I think Abu G doesn't give a tinker's damn about what the committee(s) or the public thinks of him, as long as he thinks he can get away with it. IMHO these people are not normal; they have zero sense of shame whatsoever.

ttc wrote on May 10, 2007 5:05 PM:

Gonzalez let slip out that Iglesias was canned on Election Day. I'm sure it will turn out that that was at the end of Election Day, not the beginning. It was part of the sore loser tantrum Rove must have thrown at that point. It seems clear that Rove knew the Republicans' only hope of hanging on to the congressional majority lay with voter suppression, and that he held Iglesias responsible for the failure of the voter suppression strategy.

Rove's hand is evident in the Republican talking points at both Gonzalez hearings. The mantra of child pornography, terrorism, immigration, all issues supposedly popular with the Republican base, is pure Rove.

This is Rove's show. I suspect he has consciously stolen a playbook from FDR, who unsuccessfully sought to pack the Supreme Court. Part of Rove's modus operandi is to succeed at doing something bad that a predecessor failed at doing. It's really an obsession with him. Rove was trying to pack DOJ from top to bottom with "loyal Bushies." He schemed to amend the Patriot Act so appointees could evade scrutiny. He planted Sampson and Goodling, intelligent, misguided fanatics whom he used and discarded, in a position to make low level as well as high level appointments. It really is quite audacious, but then, audacious is Rove's middle name.

Bob wrote on May 10, 2007 5:07 PM:

Linda Sanchez brought up associate AG William Mercer's statement that the reasoning behind replacing the USAs was to open up slots for insiders to assume so their resumes could be enhanced as stepping stones to federal judgeships , or other post Bush administration jobs. "Do you believe the office of US Attorney is merely a vehicle to provide party loyalists with an opportunity to pad their resume?" Sanchez asked. Gonzales said he didn't think it should be, but "there would be nothing improper in doing so."

Gonzales keeps dropping comments like that, as if they are generally accepted, but outside of Karl Rove's mind they are not. USAs have, historically, only been fired during the term of the administration that selected them for cause, such as throwing a case or assaulting someone. He said in another answer that a compelling reason standard would be too stringent for the USA post, but that is what has been used for at least the forty-five years prior to 2006.

vox clamantis in red state wrote on May 10, 2007 5:17 PM:

Ask them to just all go away, please, like a bad dream. Offer them free one way passage to that ranch in Paraguay where they can cut brush and run after cows all day. A madhouse for cowpokes who lied their way into history. But not any more in America!

oldtree wrote on May 10, 2007 5:19 PM:

it does appear that the "bunker" mentality is becoming the only remaining tactic for this particular crime family. there is no doubt that abu has been taking and giving orders to have any dark skinned people persecuted whenever required for white people's idea of a fair vote. can you imagine turning on every american to help people that spit on you for your color and laugh about you behind your back? the butt of the joke, yes, you abu. even mueller is ready to turn on you, were it not for his skin turning up under the fingernails of the victim.
It seems to me that abu would very much like everyone to concentrate on the "voter's rights" aspect of this rather than the corruption involving the same people and the abramoff. did any of these folks talk about the corruption cases that the firings affected?
sure karl and his handler and toadies would like you all to ignore the other things they are doing.

our USA's may more may not be involved as well. we know many are to one degree or another. we also know that they would have said nothing unless someone maligned them. so we are proud that our government was stupid enough to stomp on their own and not kill them to prevent them from talking.

proud, proud I tell you. and instead of doing anything about it, congress still hasn't acted in any way to stop it.

department of justice. very funny.

TheraP wrote on May 10, 2007 5:19 PM:

uncle vester:

Sometimes a behavior is what we term "over-determined." And that means it has many, many causes - all leading to the same result.

You are right. These folks are not normal. And there many be many reasons for AGAG's behavior. We can probably come up with a lot.

Masochism, however, is not based on pain, per se. It is based on self-abasement and shame can be there, even if unconscious. The unconscious is a powerful motivator - and when an individual rises from poverty to a very high position, there can be a lot of factors operating. I don't think we can discount masochism as a component. It is neither sufficient nor necessary. But I would guess it is a factor - in a complex mess that passes for a Harvard lawyer behaving like a court fool.

Peace, uncle vester.

jigsaw wrote on May 10, 2007 5:27 PM:

The most serious allegations, contained in any newspaper investigation of the US Attorney firings so far, involve the Wall Street Journal reports of top DOJ political appointees interfering in the Renzi investigation just prior to the 2006 elections--and coincident to the US attorney for Arizona being placed on the firing list. The news side of the Wall Street Journal has a high degree of credence, yet no Democrat on the committee asked about the WSJ article. For good reason it appears that Gonzales would like to keep all eyes on Lam and Iglesias and away from Charlton.

pol wrote on May 10, 2007 5:32 PM:

Nuance. This has been their modus operandi all along. Remember when it was "al Qaeda committed the crimes on 9/11 and Saddam Hussein is a very evil person"? The two statements were juxtaposed to make them seem one was related to the other.

I'd like to meet their spinmaster. Is it Rove, or does he have someone else figuring out those phrases?

Definitely OT, but something else I've been wondering -- since Bush has so many friends in the employ of the federal government, siphoning funds, and draining the well dry, I wonder how much Bush is keeping for himself? He can't be doing this for nothing...

uncle vester wrote on May 10, 2007 5:36 PM:

TheraP-

You're probably right (I'm not a mental health professional; I'm guessing you are from your handle?)

I was just being a bit snarky- I should have phrased it as a question ("Is it masochism if the recipient doesn't feel it?")

Peace back ;-)

Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 5:56 PM:

Gonzales admitted as much: "There were people that were being consulted... they may not have known they were providing information that would then form the basis of some kind of list."

So there you have it: Comey was part of a collaborative review process that he didn't know he was a part of.

Comey was an unwitting double-agent in a clandestine review process.

Call inspector Clouseau!

Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 6:01 PM:

Nuance. This has been their modus operandi all along. Remember when it was "al Qaeda committed the crimes on 9/11 and Saddam Hussein is a very evil person"? The two statements were juxtaposed to make them seem one was related to the other.

I'd like to meet their spinmaster. Is it Rove, or does he have someone else figuring out those phrases?

POL;

I've read that a lot of this has always come from the think tanks and primarily the Heritage Foundation. It is focused grouped, disseminated to RW radio audiences, then polled and evaluated before mainstream issue.

Marty Didier wrote on May 10, 2007 6:19 PM:

Maybe Gonzales is concerned about people learning about the huge weekly Cocaine Drug Shipments driven across the Texas Border from Mexico? This particular shipment is shipped to somewhere off the coast of Mexico where it is picked up by speedboats and brought back to a residence. There it’s loaded upon a Truck destined for the Texas Boarder Crossing where it easily passes through into Texas. In Texas, the drugs are loaded upon a “Pepper Truck” and driven to the Chicago area where it’s redistributed to around Chicago, New York and Florida. By the way, this weekly shipment size is $100 Million a week and there’s other huge weekly shipments sent to other parts of the US. Also, these drug shipments are protected by corruption that guarantees safe passage to their destination.

I know this because I was in a family for more than 26 years who laundered “Drug and Gun Running” money straight into Property using Mortgage Fraud techniques with big Banks. The Gun Running part is already in the news, not many know about the Drug part yet! Consider tracing the path of a protected huge weekly shipment of Drugs coming from Mexico to the Chicago Area and look at who were the Governors during the mid to early 90’s when I was told about this. There’s a lot more, but this is enough for now.

Hoppy wrote on May 10, 2007 6:25 PM:

We all need to spend a few minutes, at least, studying the US Constitution. Those men who struggled to write that document, to form a government superior to any yet existing, found a single way to handle situations such as we find ourselves in today. If they had been given the example of the Bush administration to work with, they would have, to a man, pointed to the impeachment process as the safeguard against that. It just boggles my mind that virtually no one in Congress (Kucinich is barely a step above no one) is pushing for an impeachment now. We either impeach the entire administration or acknowledge that we view impeachment only as a partisan scheme to embarass an otherwise popular president.

wrb wrote on May 10, 2007 6:38 PM:

>It really is quite audacious, but then, audacious is Rove's middle name.<

Actually, he comes from the four name tradition:

Karl Audacious Criminal Rove.

Or so the evidence indicates

Alan Lewis wrote on May 10, 2007 6:46 PM:

Gonzales said in testimony today: "I did not, and would not, ask for a resignation of any individual to interfere with or influence a particular prosecution for partisan political gain." If you parse that statement what is interesting is what was NOT said: "I did not, and would not, ask for a resignation of any individual to interfere with or influence a particular prosecution for partisan political gain, BUT I did force the resignation of many, and have allowed the hiring of many others, to promote a systemic political bias throughout the DOJ, just as the Bush Administration has done throughout other executive branch agencies and departments."

Alan Lewis wrote on May 10, 2007 6:56 PM:

Hoppy has it exactly right. We ought to be ashamed and outraged. Impeachment ought to be thie first thing that every citizen activist talks about when confronting their representatives.

Please take a few moments to find a copy of the Declaration of Independence online and read it -- every word of it. It's longer than you remembered it to be. What is so striking is the fact that so many of the offenses and insults to basic human dignity complained of in that seminal document are now being perpetrated, in one form or another, by this gang of criminals and thugs.

Americans ought to be marching in the streets every day with everything they have at their disposal until these bastards are run out of office on a rail.

"loss" is the security code -- as in, the loss of our fundamental freedoms and rights as a constitutional democracy.

nolo wrote on May 10, 2007 7:20 PM:

over at my place (click my
name, below!), i now have
a 1 min., 30 sec. video
(complete with glossy-chart
data-sets, and vice music!)
of rep. artur davis completely
destroying alberto gonzales on
the issue of partisan-disparity
in public corruption investigations,
2001 to 2006. . . this is how
it SHOULD be done, folks. . .

djcrow22 wrote on May 10, 2007 7:31 PM:

Hey Hoppy:
Listen closely. I am good and goddamned tired of people(you)making smarmy, disrespectful and stupid remarks about Rep. Kucinich! Based on what the guy looks like and his particular forebearance, you and many others seem to think its an accepted and witty practice to refer to Kucinich as some kind of joke("he is barely above no one"). He has shown more courage, statemanship and political bravery than any number of gutless, self centered democrats you could name. The liberal blogosphere is screaming for impeachment but who is the only politician with the balls to call for it? Everyone laughs and makes fun of Kucinich for doing what needs to be done.Instead of belittling and demeaning Kucinich try some respect and support for a guy whose shoes none of us could possibly fill. If we had politicians with his personal constitution and guts, we would have a great country, not this cesspool of liars, cowards and self centered assholes.

El Borba wrote on May 10, 2007 7:33 PM:

To mark ettinger:
Gonzo actually tried out that "fact witness" excuse before the Senate first. But not to the extent it was exercised today. It is a bogus claim. Because if he really believed it, there would be no problem for him to point the committee towards the other appropriate fact witnesses who could answer the questions. And he carefully avoided that route. Also, it was very cynical for him to claim that among the inquiries that would have their integrity compromised if he were to ask such questions of his staff were the House and Senate hearings in which he was attempting to run the clock with this tactic. Slimy, just slimy.

El Borba wrote on May 10, 2007 7:37 PM:

To djcrow22:
I disagree with your language. This is supposed to be a polite conversation (regardless of how other may behave). But I definitely agree with your sentiment. In a modern "Profiles In Courage", Kucinich would get a chapter.

gorp wrote on May 10, 2007 8:08 PM:

Some things to consider: 1]your typical senator or congressman/woman is no fool, regardless of their politics; when they are getting played they know it. 2[ the nature of their job requires great patience. 3] they all have very powerfull egos and if you cross them there will be payback to come.

TheraP wrote on May 10, 2007 8:09 PM:

Your guess is correct, uncle vester

Actually your initial hunch about masochism does fit for perversions - in that there would be pain involved. For personality dynamics, however, it's what I described above.

So I think it's a draw here. A tip of the hat!

TK wrote on May 10, 2007 8:15 PM:

I think it would be interesting to ask Gonzales when it was decided that the conversations - that are being counted as "consultations" (of the unknown kind) - were to be considered consultations. Was that decision made before or after the conversations. If it was made afterwards then how long afterwards and what was the reason for that decision?

bcg wrote on May 10, 2007 8:58 PM:

A couple of observations.
This administration is attempting to conflate propriety with legality. As Sen. Whitehouse observed in the April 19th hearing, it's lowering the bar just about as far as it will go. This allows it to grant itself license in all cases that lack the kind of proof suitable for an indictment.
While the administration's apologists continue to attempt to make the case that there was no impropriety (the 'pleasure of the president' argument) in the dismissals and, ignoring a mountain of contradictory evidence, that the firings were for cause, the administration itself seems to have largely given up on seriously pushing those arguments. The ploys now seem to be only for that part of their base that's easily duped.
The administration's main focus, as in so many of its previous scandals, seems to have shifted to trying to pin responsibility on the most junior possible officials. Gonzales is still trying to turn Sampson into an avatar of the Abu Ghraib jailors by hanging responsibility on him. At the same time, the AG continues to serve his masters in the White House by avoiding saying anything that would strengthen the links joining any of the ranking members of the executive branch to the firings. In this way, and with his endlessly contradictory statements, he's setting himself up to take the hit, ala "Brownie" or Scooter Libby.
If the AG is taken down, my guess is that the next piece of the executive branch to be amputated in an effort to stop this investigation will be Rove and Miers' offices. If that sacrifice doesn't put an end to it, Bush himself will be pushed from office. At that point, it will be the Republican Party that will be doing the damage control: a half dozen or more of their senators and representatives, as well as the the RNC itself, are already implicated in this scandal. It certainly has cause to act for its self-preservation.

uncle vester wrote on May 10, 2007 9:21 PM:

TheraP-

Thanks for the h/t, and thank you for your insight.

:-)

security code: expert (unless you're sick of the whole security code thing)

The Oracle wrote on May 10, 2007 9:43 PM:

The only word that comes to mind now when I see Alberto Gonzales is weasel.

A sniveling little weasel who has about as much credibility (and integrity) as, well, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

l wrote on May 10, 2007 9:57 PM:

what an absolute waste.

Basharov wrote on May 10, 2007 10:06 PM:

Fredo will put up with whatever abuse these committees can dish out and will not resign because he is determined to protect Bush from a special prosecutor who would bring down the whole criminal enterprise that is the White House. There is no way a new AG could be confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee unless (1) the nominee is a person of unimpeachable integrity and independence and (2) the nominee promises to appoint a special prosecutor with the independence and the resources to do a thorough house-cleaning of this bunch of criminals, starting with Rove and moving on up the line to the top. Because this turn of events would lead to clear evidence of felonies committed at the highest levels of the White House, it will not be allowed to happen. Fredo isn't going anywhere unless the Congress acts to remove him from office.

Robin wrote on May 10, 2007 10:10 PM:

Is it reasonable to believe that Sampson is sitting in his livingroom realizing that this could all be put on him?

The story from all sides seems to be it was Sampson's fault. That he intentionnally (by consulting no one) made up this list to get certain people fired and put others in their place.

Charges should be made against Sampson if he can't or won't defend that allegation.

Show Me wrote on May 10, 2007 10:14 PM:

I don't understand why he can't be charged with obstruction of justice? Would one of the lawyers explain that please.36

TheraP wrote on May 10, 2007 10:33 PM:

uncle vester

I love the security code thing!

I try to restrain myself, out of respect for those being driven nuts by it - so they won't accuse me of trying to get extra business.

But for you: Let's put our "weight" to the grindstone and reclaim our country!

Ulysses wrote on May 10, 2007 10:46 PM:

This whole thing is a little ridiculous now. Why do they have all these guys come on one at a time? If any company in the world were trying to figure out who did or said what, they'd get the whole group in the room at the same time. Then you ask Gonzales who decided and he'll say Sampson, and so you turn to Sampson right then and there and say, "is that right?" and Sampson would call Gonzales a liar to his face. If Congress wants to have it out, have it out!

eyeball wrote on May 10, 2007 11:20 PM:

Gonzales was asked who put Iglesias on the US Att. firing list that he approved. was it bush? cheney? himself? sampson? one of 8 or 10 top deputies. no, Gonzo said each time. So how did he get on the list that you approved? Gonzales DOES NOT KNOW! He does not know how the name of a US Atty, got on a firing list he approved. He does not know. So he's asked: Well, why can't you find out? Answer: because we're being internally investigated so i can't ask. so if i get this straight: the AG of the USA cannot find out the answer to a simple personnel issue because he is being probed about that and other personnel issues. How the hell can he do his job? How the hell can we believe him? how the hell does he know who did or did not put iglesias's name on the list if he doesnt know who wrote the list?

are we really supposed to take this seriously? this is downright nixonian. beyond nixonian.

prediction: goodling put iglesias on the list -- rove told her to do it -- rove went to bush and cheney for the go-ahead first. goodling told gonzales. they all lied ... game set match.

BroD wrote on May 10, 2007 11:31 PM:

Yeah, ok, but let's stop waiting for him to resign--naganahappen. Either we pat him on the back and say he's doing a heckofajob or we impeach the unctuous little phony.

uncle vester wrote on May 10, 2007 11:53 PM:

TheraP

Yes, let's do.

Maybe we should have a TPMmuckraker plebiscite on the security code thing ;-)

Bedtime now.

Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.

Carol wrote on May 11, 2007 1:20 AM:

Rachel Paulose is stinky as hell. Heffelfinger said that he simply retired, but I think he was paid off or threatened.

annabanana wrote on May 11, 2007 5:30 AM:

He keeps saying he consulted with "Senior Leadership of the Department".. Yet every single member of the senior leadership has denied any participation.

Maybe he was consulting with Senor Leadership. . some cartoon character in a sombrero. .

Anonymous wrote on May 11, 2007 6:54 AM:

"Is it reasonable to believe that Sampson is sitting in his livingroom realizing that this could all be put on him?"

When he first resigned, his lawyer immediately let off a shot acros the WH's bow. I think Samason is going to protect himself by spilling beans, though he may be waiting for an immunity deal.

annabanana --

"He keeps saying he consulted with "Senior Leadership of the Department"."

Certainly: he consulted with himself. And acting-senior leader of the Dept. Rove.

In the questioning by another of the Democrats he began a sentence about who did the firings with, "I decided" -- then quickly backed out of that inadvertent admission of responsibility and went back to being brilliantly competent at not knowing anything at all.

irina wrote on May 12, 2007 9:58 AM:

It is so depressing to consider what this administration has done to FEMA, the DOJ and our military — These are the disasters we know about.

....
Dahlia Lithwick has written a good post on Gonzales’ performance at the hearing.

http://www./slate.com/id/2165987/pagenum/all/

Basically, her take is he doesn’t give a rat’s ass what anyone thinks.