Comments (29)

urban pirate wrote on July 24, 2007 3:24 PM:

Impeach him already.

Tom Betz wrote on July 24, 2007 3:25 PM:

President Cheney sent him. It's obvious.

One of the signal events of the day was that Whitehouse brought the OVP into the questioning, asking why the OVP had to be permitted to communicate with Justice about pending cases.

Now we get to do discovery about Cheney interfering in prosecutions and pending prosecutions.

Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 3:26 PM:

Maybe if we asked Schumer under oath who on his staff wrote his questions, then he will understand?

Eric Stepp wrote on July 24, 2007 3:36 PM:

I'm curious then... out of all the questions that Leahy sent Gonzales to bone up on before the hearing, did Gonzales answer ANY of them in a satisfactory manner?

Eric Ferguson wrote on July 24, 2007 3:36 PM:

Where is there to go with this? He's testified several times before, he's been caught lying repeatedly, he's been called upon to resign repeatedly, and though he deserved the scoldings he got today, he's been scolded before. So what's the point? Plainly he won't resign and Bush won't fire him, so Congress should either impeach him or admit they won't do squat about him.

JEP wrote on July 24, 2007 3:37 PM:

The Bush administration nees something desperately...

A DRUG TEST!!!

THEY SURE SEEM TO SMILE IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY!

And even some of the right-wingers have noticed it in Bush, they consider it an intractable spirit, but most of us in realityland suspect it is more likely synthetic morphine, or one of Rummy's designer "Perks from Merck..." than optimism that fuels their cheery images.

How else can they continue to smile as the house of Cards falls down around them?

How can they continue to act uplifted, when their reputations have been completely destroyed?

How can they smile, when all they have left are the brainless, vile, war-loving zombies who would willingly follow them right over the cliff.
Just ask Rush. He knows all about it. And we don't have to go far to find these lemmings-in-Republican-clothing, we have some great examples of these blind followers, and their desperate, hopeless ravings, right here on this blog.

"By their fruits ye shall know them."

Eric Stepp wrote on July 24, 2007 3:37 PM:

I'm curious then... out of all the questions that Leahy sent Gonzales to bone up on before the hearing, did Gonzales answer ANY of them in a satisfactory manner?

Eric Stepp wrote on July 24, 2007 3:38 PM:

I'm curious then... out of all the questions that Leahy sent Gonzales to bone up on before the hearing, did Gonzales answer ANY of them in a satisfactory manner?

Anna S. wrote on July 24, 2007 3:45 PM:

What part of 'the EXECUTIVE has to assert executive privilege' do these people not understand?

JEP wrote on July 24, 2007 3:48 PM:

"he's been caught lying repeatedly"

actually, this time it is much more egregious, because his own stories don't match. Before, his stories didn't Comey's or Griffin's or Goodling's, so although we allknew he was guilty, the apologists still found a way to trivialize it.

but when someone gets up and refutes their own statements by making contracictory claims and assertions, then even the wingers have to scratch their heads and wonder. They will be forced to accept the fact that Gonzo is an unmitigated liar.

The Republicans need a new 12-step program to overcome their addiction to lying.

And they all will finally have to admit there is a higher power than Bush... that is the first step to recovery.

Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 3:49 PM:

Posted by: Eric Stepp
Date: July 24, 2007 3:37 PM

The written response is reported to have not addressed Leahy's quesetions.

No statement/opinion on the testimony, which your question deserves an answer.

Punchy wrote on July 24, 2007 3:55 PM:

They really do plan on using "Executive Privlege, bitches" as their end-all for any and all questions they don't like.

This guy is as full of shit as they come. Period. Full stop.

JEP wrote on July 24, 2007 4:03 PM:

If Gonzo EVER admits publicly that Cheney sent him to Ashcroft's room, and that Bush knew it was happening that way, then they are both implicated in a conspiracy to defy the constitution, not defend it.

That is the reason Gonzo cannot answer that question. The truth, in this situation, is like a grenade pin to the neocons, and once those words are uttered publicly, especially inb Congressional testimony, the pin is pulled.

There are a dozen other political grenades out there, (WMD, Plamegate, Downing Street, KBR, etc ad infinitum) just waiting for one or another Bushie to stumble on... it is just a matter of time before the first one actually goes off.

But once it does, there's no end to it in sight. One grenade exploding has a tendency to set all the rest of them off.

Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 4:07 PM:

Yeah, just ask Max Cleland.

Mike Conwell wrote on July 24, 2007 4:15 PM:

Man, I've been gone a long time, and have been behind on my duty.

For the casual reader, new to the site, Jake D. is a bothersome troll, attempting to set the tone of each story by being an early poster of such drivel. Please read below for more insightful comments.

jak1 wrote on July 24, 2007 4:18 PM:

And Capt. Un-American pulls out his mighty shield!

>>Gonzales implied that it might be covered by executive privilege since it related "to activities that existed when I was in the White House."<<

Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 4:20 PM:

The echo chamber of Bush-haters here can chant over and over: "Gonzales has been caught lying repeatedly" but without any specifics, of course, there's no way to prove that. Have fun spinning your wheels though.

RUN, CINDY, RUN!!!

salesanalyst wrote on July 24, 2007 4:26 PM:

exactomundo. Actully, it doesn't matter if it was POTUS or VPOTUS cause they'd both be toast if that got out. Hence, protect AGAG for as long as possible.

That's also the reason they're trying so hard to draw a distinction between TSP version 1 and TSP version 2. The first version will be shown to be so blatantly offensive to the rule of law that they'll be heading back to Tex/Wyoming after a quick V-for-victory sign from the steps of Marine One as they chopper off the White House lawn.

"If Gonzo EVER admits publicly that Cheney sent him to Ashcroft's room, and that Bush knew it was happening that way, then they are both implicated in a conspiracy to defy the constitution, not defend it. That is the reason Gonzo cannot answer that question. The truth, in this situation, is like a grenade pin to the neocons, and once those words are uttered publicly, especially inb Congressional testimony, the pin is pulled."

Austin Cooper wrote on July 24, 2007 5:27 PM:

Why do people continue to feed Jakey?

Isn't it obvious that what they do here is a substitution for (or an aid to) masturbation for him/her?

There's certainly no substance to argue with. Ignore It.

lysias wrote on July 24, 2007 5:52 PM:

Gonzales memo that Whitehouse produced means Cheney, Rove, and Addington could get briefed about developments in the Libby/Plamegate case.

By the way, Gonzales at the hearing refused to claim executive privilege or any other privilege to justify his refusal to answer Schumer's questions.

Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 6:00 PM:

Whether the President did or did not oversee the visit is meaningless: The President is in a prosecutor's trap:

A. Either he did oversee the visit, and he attempted to regulate and enforce the law, as required by oath; or
B. He did not oversee the visit, and he did not attempt to enforce the law, violating his oath; or
C. The AG ignored all oversight guidance, and attempted to circumvent the Congressional rules imposing on him FISA requirements.

CONGRESSIONAL ROLE

There is a means to settle this dispute over FISA. Congress lone has the power to regulate the troops -- NSA personnel and contractors -- who conduct the surveillance. Congress has the sole Article 1 Section 8 powers to regulate: "REGULATING of fleets and armies" [Fed 69].

The President was not delegated any power to regulate the NSA; nor in defining rules how the NSA would engage in surveillance related to war. That is the exclusive power of the Congress under Article 1 Section 8.

The President has no power or option to "opt out" of legal requirements Congress imposes and the President has agreed to. Rather, the "opting out" and assert that "FISA does not apply" (when it does) is not a defense, but an implicit admission that they were ignoring FISA, contrary to law.

Sam Thornton wrote on July 24, 2007 6:02 PM:

Jake D is a nuisance. I invite anyone who feels the same to send a request to the website to block him in future.

The only email addresses I can find for contact on this site are:

tips@tpmmuckraker.com
paul@talkingpointsmemo.com

Anyone have others?

Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 6:40 PM:

"We were there on behalf of the President of the United States," was Gonzales' repeated answer.

Really means: Cheney sent them. Nobody, NOBODY, does anything in this misadministration without Cheney's okie dokie. Ask Mrs. Ashcroft.

parrot wrote on July 24, 2007 7:14 PM:

Maybe THE PRESIDENT can answer these questions...during the impeachment hearings. I think calling him to testify about Gonzalez's crimes during Gonzalez's impeachment might just be the kicker. I can just see Busholini refusing to testify on behalf of his "friend".

PaulB wrote on July 24, 2007 7:34 PM:

"The echo chamber of Bush-haters here can chant over and over: "Gonzales has been caught lying repeatedly" but without any specifics, of course, there's no way to prove that."

Chuckles, dear, the specifics have been posted repeatedly, both here and elsewhere, as you well know. It's amazing how much you miss, dear, when your fingers are in your ear and you're shouting "lalalalala" at the top of your lungs.

You really should join us out here in reality, Chuckles.

anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 9:32 PM:

So, Gonzales had weeks to prepare and knew this question was going to be asked, but he didn't bother to determine before hand whether it was or was not covered by executive privilege.

More evidence of the incomparable incompetence of this man.

What kind of dimwitted attorney goes into a hearing not knowing whether a privilege applies to questions he knows he is going to be asked.

A Bush attorney.

pepsified thinker wrote on July 25, 2007 8:59 AM:

Qns. I'd like to see asked--or more of actual transcript if it relates to them are

1) DID OVP folks get info on Plame/Libby case? On any other cases?

2) A lot of comments here jumped to the same question I immediately had: did CHENEY send Gonzo to Ashcroft? Does the transcript show whether Leahy asked Gonzo not just if Bush had sent him, but if anyone else had done so? Couldn't that narrow it down so, by claiming exec. priviledge, we'd know who'd sent him?

maybe this repeats what the 6:00 PM post said above, but:

--Who besides POTUS has authority to direct him to go?

--Could/Would he have gone on his own, and if so, would
that have been covered by exec. priviledge?

I'm thinking that line might lead to Rove, but that would be an interesting place to go.

I'm in the 'inpatient for impeachment' crowd, but I'm seeing this and the various other hearings as a lawyer's way of getting there: build a mountain of evidence so damning GOPpers can't help but vote with Dems--and one of JEP's grenades will bring down in an avalanche.

Doctor Jay wrote on July 25, 2007 10:06 AM:

AG tried to imply privilege because it looks better that way. But he didn't assert it directly because it doesn't apply. He was in meeting with someone, and there was more than just the VP or POTUS in the room. They were discussing US government business. He was not offering private legal advice.

No privilege, and he knows it. His job is to run out the clock.

ma104zda wrote on November 19, 2007 2:02 PM:

c798t