Captain's Quarters -

Re 9:04 am (10:04 for us on Eastern Time), I could understand Fox or CNN breaking away for important things such as a new development on Anna Nicole, but why C-SPAN?

Looks like CNN is covering it, kinda (got a split screen with a talking head)

Feinstein underscored the point that Gonzales didn't look at the performance reports before firing the prosecutors, which Gonzales confirms.

It's hard to see how they will get more than this out of Gonzales. He has effectively passed the buck and will be judged for doing so. Just plowing around on assorted issues is not going to help the senators get useful testimony.

They should parse out his "involvement" in the entire firing process in detail. That's the only remaining fertile ground for this witness. Maybe that's what Feinstein is doing.

I cannot find the link, but didn't Feistein send Gonzales a letter complaining about Lam?

Live video stream can be watched at this link
(which is on CSPAN3)

http://www.cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan3_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS3

NPR is broadcasting it (of course.)

In the little bit I've been able to listen to, Gonzales is a remarkably poor witness. He is in a tough position; he put the rope around his own neck in this matter and now he's just trying to keep the stool from being kicked away.

It's just amazing how many times the Bush Administration has done what might have been the right thing, but done it so tentatively and with such poor external communication that they leave themselves open to being thumped on the head for it.

It's a sad state of affairs when the USAG is so stupid and incompetent that he makes US senators look (almost) professional and wise in comparison.

Anybody else as nauseated as I am by the thought that "credit report" Schumer is passing judgement here? It is indeed a sad state of affairs.

I think Bush will stick with Gonzales, just to remind the Congress that they're not all-powerful. Not yet. And there's only about 1-1/2 years left. That's not going to draw out America's best and brightest, to apply for such a thankless job.

Unbelievable

Republican Senator Coburn from Oklahoma just tore Gonzales a new a-hole.

Then, told Gonzales that he should resign.

If a Repulican senator from OK is telling him to quit, then it's time for Fredo to realize that he is toast.

"I think Bush will stick with Gonzales, just to remind the Congress that they're not all-powerful."

As I said before, it would be Bush at his most petulant.

This entire hearing is an absolute waste of time and I have no interest in anything about it.

What a total waste of taxpayer dollars.

Re: Tom Shipley at April 19, 2007 02:07 PM

Gonzales is still a great improvement over someone like Janet Reno. It's not like our previous administration gave Bush a high bar to clear, or any bar to clear.

Bush will stick with Gonzo, just for the reason RBMN mentioned: at this point, no sane person would undertake a Senate confirmation for the job for such a short period.

I also agree with NoDonk that it is a waste of time. I got the impression the Democrats would just have soon burned him at the stake and be done with it, but couldn't find anyone in their caucus who could build a fire without help.

Gonzales is still a great improvement over someone like Janet Reno. It's not like our previous administration gave Bush a high bar to clear, or any bar to clear.

This administration hasn't even FOUND the bar yet much less even attempted to clear it yet!

This entire hearing is an absolute waste of time and I have no interest in anything about it. What a total waste of taxpayer dollars.

You are correct, Bush should have fired him weeks ago.

I think Bush will stick with Gonzales, just to remind the Congress that they're not all-powerful. Not yet. And there's only about 1-1/2 years left. That's not going to draw out America's best and brightest, to apply for such a thankless job.

I think the reason is much simpler than that, Bush is an idiot surrounded by idiots. In Gonzo though Bush has actually found someone that makes him look just below average instead of pityful.

Even the people who are running this circus, think it's a joke.

Does anyone seriously think the Democrats see this as anything other than a chance to get their faces in front of a camera and as political theater?

The Democrats have rigged what is laughingly referred to as our "legal" system into a stupid game.

It's all about Democrats scoring political points and secondarily, about enriching a few lawyers.

That's all there is to it. Anyone who wastes their time discussing the fine legal points on display here, might as well spend their time playing dungeons and dragons.

Who cares? The rules will all change tomorrow, depending on whose ox is gored. And the lawyers will get richer.

This "hearing" is a fiasco and a farce.

"Who cares?"

Reminds of playing game of whiffle ball when I was a kid. You'd go up 12-0 on your friend and they'd storm off muttering "who cares about this stupid game anyway.

NoDonkey,

Does this answer your question?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/washington/29gonzales.html

http://news.bostonherald.com/national/midwest/view.bg?articleid=193272

There are legitimate questions that Gonzalez needs to answer. So far, he's been shown to be a liar or incompetent in answering those questions.

Oooo gee, the NY Times and the Boston Herald.

Don't care, not reading it.

Would all change if a Democrat were in office.

Don't care about Gonzales, one way or the other. Fire him. Get some other completely worthless lawyer in there. Any bloodsucking lawyer scum wiil do.

If you're a member of the favored victim class or a millionaire, you get justice. The rest of us spin the wheel and get what we get.

If we're lucky, if one of the preferred victim class kills us, law enforcement will pick up our body while the media runs a video to celebrate the life of the murderer.

And I am consistent. I hate abortion, but I think it's a waste of time to pursue anything in what passes for our soup sandwich of a "legal system".

It's a rigged game. Ask the Duke Lacrosse players.

Our "legal system" was bought by the lawyers and they own it. The rest of us play three-card monte when we enter a courtroom.

So now Democrats are going to subpoena Bush Administration officials to learn "what did the Senate know, and when did it know it"?

Why doesn't Feinstein know who drafted the language? Because the 100 Senators not only do not believe in oversight and checks and balances between the Senate and other institutions, but they practice compartmentalization among themselves.

I think the executive branch has firm ground to refuse to discuss the process by which the Senate develops legislation.

No one, not even Karl Rove, can hope to keep all the lies straight to cover up the truth of why those U.S. attorneys were really fired.

Gonzales at one time might have been made to be the fall guy, but no longer given his complete and utter ineptitude. No one seriously believes that the impetus to fire those attorneys came from anyone other than Karl Rove and was signed off on by President Bush. The only thing keeping Gonzales in his job is to keep the heat off Rove for as long as possible. Well, all bad things must come to an end also, and it can't come soon enough for Gonzales.

Couldn't bring myself to listen to this thing - I have about a 1,000 better things to do with my time, like flossing my teeth.

Just looking at the Captain's post and these comments makes me glad I didn't bother.

Nobody looks good, utterly depressing.

On a different forum, I used to have a signature line that went, "Remember, America always has the government it truly deserves."

Lord, I hope that's wrong.

Current events this week have been so depressing that I am signing off until Tuesday at least. I'd druther skip Monday altogether.

"Remember, America always has the government it truly deserves."

I guess that means we are going to hell in a breadbasket, then.

So Churchill said that "Democracy is the worst system of all, besides all the rest."?

I think Winston might be rethinking that today. Anarchy might be preferable to our Congress.

starfleet dude -

you wrote: "No one seriously believes that the impetus to fire those attorneys came from anyone other than Karl Rove and was signed off on by President Bush"

The reason that Gonzales looks so lame is that it should never have mattered what anyone believes about the reasons for the firings. The attorneys serve at THE PLEASURE of the President - the original position only had to be - "We decided to replace these 8. We thank them for their service. For personnel privacy reasons, no further statements will be made. "

End of story. No scandal, no continuing controversy, no lame hearing where Gonzales gets to exhibit his mediocrity.

i still see yourself as being far to harsh on the AG, in the face of an absurd partisan deceit.

it is well established that this was a delegated responsibility from AG Ashcroft's Tenure, to deal with the Attorney's performance.

again, Captain, to be fair, you fail to acknowledge this is during the GWOT, where the CEO of the AG's Office is truly 'occupied'.

he clearly did not lie, but made a few mistakes, which mostly comes down to a poor, incomplete, testimony in the beginning.

wow...

thus, as Conservatives, we know no one is perfect, even when they overall, do outstanding jobs...

some bloggers on the WWW, have made countless mistakes, overblowing nothing into something.

and everyone in our Gov., would be forced to resign regarding the standards some are using to judge AG Gonzales.

the failure to simply rebuke the ugly partisan agenda of the Democrat Party, only emboldens the folly.

and it is the responsibility of all Americans to condemn this garbage from the Democrat Politicians, in a clear, firm manner.

or it will grow...

equating a few mistakes, is simply not objective, or reasonable.

the desire for some to be above the fray, is not helping anyone...

and the bias slant developed in Conservative circles, after the 2004 reelection, towards this Administration, continues to taint reasoned perceptions.

and still, it seems the AG's Office got it right, about those who should be removed.

If the administration had pushed them all out, it wouldn't have raised eyebrows.

If the AG had forthrightly stood up at the time and said "We are replacing these US Attorneys because their actions and priorities do not adequately reflect the policies of this Administration" they'd have had, I think, a clearly defensible position.

Instead, we're seeing reeking piles of bovine excrement oozing from every door at the DOJ and it's completely self-inflicted. They tried to sneak down the back stairs, got caught with their keys jingling and now they're making excuses. This is Amateur Hour at its worst.

Let's remember this is substantially the same Senate that looked and sounded like a police station drunk tank at 2AM during the Roberts and Alito confirmation but Gonzales barely got out with his arms and legs. Was this his effort at a rope-a-dope?

I'm with Coburn on this one.

An observation:

Many conservatives here, even if they're not exactly thrilled with Gonzales, have an even deeper distrust of the Senate dems. They believe - not without reason - that Leaky, Trashcan Chuckie, Babsie, and The Swimmer are simply out to score political points and otherwise couldn't care less about the US attorneys, just as they didn't care when Slick Willie fired them en masse some years ago.

Here's the point: libs LOOOOVE to complain that the hated Chimpy McBushitler is "dividing" the nation, and that he's too "partisan". In short, It's All Bush's Fault(TM).

What are the dems doing to try to unite the country? What are they doing to demonstrate that they put the country above politics and that they represent ALL the people, not just the nutjobs at moveon.org? I submit that they aren't doing a damned thing. Ultimately, the political games they are playing will do every bit as much damage to our country and our people's faith in our government as anything they've accused Bush of doing.

"Checks and balances" only works when the various parties are perceived as acting in something other than selfish, partisan interest.

"Oooo gee, the NY Times and the Boston Herald.

Don't care, not reading it. "

This is why so many conservatives LOVE the media bias card. It's crutch. Don't like the truth, just yell MEDIA BIAS and you're done.

It's about as lazy and weak an argument you can make.

Gonzales is detached, doesn't talk to his subordinates. Allows them to make decisions he should make. As the Captain says, an absentee landlord.

I loved how Kohl tried to get Gonzales to say he would resign if the polls showed him with low numbers -- sort of like saying "I'm not going to say you should be fired, but I'm going to get you to say it". Didn't work and made Kohl sound like a real hack. How many politicians resign when their poll numbers are bad?

Of course there's nothing illegal here -- the opening remarks by Leahy indicates that he understands that all the attornies serve at the President's pleasure -- no if, ands, or buts. And then turns around and talks about illegal firings.

Gonzales may be toast, but he defended the career guys serving under the DA's. He pointed out that charges were filed against at least one leading Republican prior to the election, and that none of the investigations so interesting to the Democrats have been derailed, nor were investigations so interesting to the Republicans sped up.

And for Feinstein to excoriate Gonzales when she shoved one of the bigger knives into Lam is ludicrous.

This is why so many conservatives LOVE the media bias card. It's crutch. Don't like the truth, just yell MEDIA BIAS and you're done. It's about as lazy and weak an argument you can make.

Yes, but when you don't have any other reason or excuse to fall back on ... you use it. The big bad MSM made me do it.

If dems are partisan hacks, then so too are the republicans. Lets get that caveat out of the way. I listened to all of the Gonzalez hearings. He is indeed a poor witness. My theory is the firings came out of Rovers office. This has his fingerprints all over it. That why his RNC e-mails "mysteriously" got deleted. Gonzalez tried to use the "no laws were broken" defense and one of the senators said (paraphrasing here) we expect more of your leadership than just not breaking laws i.e. the way it was handled. Does ANYBODY on this blog think he's qualified to be the AG? He's way over his head on this one. Nodonkey, are you always happy-go-lucky. You should change your online name to sourpuss.

Why leftists never take conservatives (or Bush) at their word:

"Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack." --George S. Patton