1. Anonymous says:

    One of the reasons I sat through the 2nd round of questions was that I really wanted to see what Whitehouse would do next. (I loved how he went after Sampson!) I really wanted him to have more time with Gonzales. And the charts were really really damning. I wish the camera could’ve panned on Hatch’s face (if he was even in the room anymore) during that unveiling.

    He must’ve been quite a prosecutor!

  2. Anonymous says:

    The question I hoped that Whitehouse would ask in this otherwise great line of inquiry was WHEN will the public see the OPR report. No timeline, no opportunity for followup.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Right, but Gonzales is right–AGAG has recused, so now we need to go after Clement. Clement appears to be a truly brilliant lawyer, who has defended things he doesn’t believe in as effectively as he has defended things he does believe in. Problem is, he’s a former clerk of both Silberman and Scalia with a big fondness for the Unitary Executive.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Woodhall Hallow is dead on, Whitehouse was excellent. It sure makes a difference when ou have an attorney skilled at cross-examination (it really is an art) asking the questions.

    EW – Reversing your order a little bit (hey you did) I am not sure that gonzales is right to rely on â€recusing†himself on this topic. whether or not the report is made; that is ministerial and you wouldn’t think subject to an ethical recusal consideration. Secondly, you are dead on about the relative duties, and the way the reporting of those duties is made, between the OPR and OIG respectively. There is only one possible reason for this dodge, and you and Whitehouse both have it down. I am shocked. If this was your last post on yesterday’s hearings (which I neither believe nor suggest), you save the best for last. Whitehouse tore through Gonzales. To me, it was the best stuff of the hearing; a new angle for most everyone, and handled masterfully by Whitehouse. Whitehouse is fit to be AG;AG is not.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Did you see this clip? It’s Chuck Shumer after the hearings yesterday. It makes me wonder if the White House’s rationale for asking Gonzales to resign might switch from saving face, which is impossible at this point, to covering their asses on seeing this move any further. The clip is here:

    http://snuffmonkey.com/gonzales

  6. Anonymous says:

    Schumer’s point in the interview linked here is clear–if no one at DOJ will own up to putting the names on the list, then â€the arrow points to the White House†and they really have to hear from Rove and Miers. This may also be why Goodling gets immunity, as she is the liaison to the WH.

  7. Anonymous says:

    And Schumer seems to have grasped that while Gonzo floated above all this, the dirty work was done by the loyal Bushies at DOJ and in the WH.

    One question I wish I’d heard: which people did Gonzales consider had the authority to be part of the ’consensus’ process? Name names.

    And this one: ’Is it possible that White House officials from Karl Rove’s office and the White House counsel’s office had direct input in adding names to the list?’ And follow-up: ’But you can’t say for sure that they didn’t, can you? You’ve admitted that you handed off the process to Kyle Sampson.’

  8. Anonymous says:

    So I just undertook the pointless exercise of emailing John Cornyn to suggest that Gonzales is unfit for office. Cornyn’s webpage has an anti-spam feature where you pick a word from a dropbox before the message is accepted. The words on the dropbox were:

    ROTATIONS
    BUSHWACKS
    DELETING
    TANGS
    LENINISTS
    UNDRESSING
    ORDERLY
    BEAT

    And the word I was prompted to select was â€fifth from the topâ€. Sweet!

  9. Anonymous says:

    I think it just dawned on me again that Gonzo is right! There are no laws being broken here. Laws are those things passed by Congress, signed by the President which appear to be constitutional. No, the president is doing things which are so fundamentally wrong, nobody ever thought they needed a law. These are things so bad, that the founding fathers probably assumed there would be immediate consensus in Congress to remove the offender quickly before further damage could be done to our great republic. They probably never considered the potential for so many of their own would form an enabling environment for the destruction of our constitutional framework. They probably thought that those being elected would separate themselves from their personal, family and business interests in service to the constitution. Their only sworn oath. The only oath required for those entering public service. Yes we have an entire executive philosophy based upon the male lead in _My Cousin Vinny_. â€You’s was serious about that?â€

  10. Anonymous says:

    Again, I am so proud to be a native Rhode Islander! I was skeptical of Sheldon, I did indeed vote for Lincoln Chaffee after much internal deliberation. I loved his father John Chaffee and Linc grew on me, especially when he took on John Bolton and derailed him.

    But, good on ’ya Sheldon! Keep it up.