Senate NSA Hearing today: Oh. My. Gawd.

[TayTay]

On today's installment of 'As the Constitution Burns': Gonzo Gonzales appears on Capitol Hill and lies about having ever read the Constitution and claims to have no idea what happened to it. "President Bush saw the Constitution in the National Archives once, but he was out of town when it disappeared. Honest. We don't know what happened to it, but it was just a piece of paper anyway, right?"

Will Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter actually fulfill his Oath of Office to Uphold, Defend and Protect the Constitution or will a Replicant out of Karl Rove's office take his place and fold in the face of pressure from the White House? Will Arlen be the first Repub in the 109th Congress to actually use the subpoena power of Congress to compel the Bush Admin to release relevant documents about the NSA or will he cave in and just decide to call it a day and order take-out?

Will the Senate Democrats Leahy, Kennedy, Biden, Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer and Durbin stand tall in defense of 200+ years of the Constitutional law and the idea that the President must obey that law? Will the Lion roar? Will DiFi's spine implant of the last few weeks take? Will Feingold bitch-slap Gonzo into the 16th Century, where he belongs, or will Gonzo refuse to ever acknowledge the intrepid Senator from Wisconsin?

The answers to these and other vital questions in todays Judi cary Committee hearing on 'As the Constitution Burns.' Tune in at http://judiciary.senate.gov/schedule.cfm

or http://www.c-span.org/

Hey, I'm serious. This is good stuff. See who believes in the Constitution and who finds it a 'quaint but outmoded' system of insuring that the government doesn't exceed it's authority.

[TayTay]

1. Also, see this blog for the Dems 'strategy' today

And stop laughing, the Dems do have a strategy. Sen. Kennedy worked with the Dem bloggers and came up with some innovative questions and a real strategy for trapping Gonzo in his lies.

Honest! http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

[jillan]

4. Did you catch him on CSpan this morning?

He was awesome, laying it on the line.
Best line he said to a rw wacko that we are going to
be involved in this war on terra for decades. Are you willing
to give up your rights for your whole lifetime? For all of the
Presidents that will be elected over this time?

However, the Law Professor they had from the other side
was long-winded, and supported bsh completely.

[MH1]

25. FYI

Mr. Greenwald is not one of our friends. He may be right on this one (may), or have the hot tip, but he has been very, very wrong on others. Search is your friend. Just sayin'.

[TayTay]

26. Oh that's a probable.

But he is the Constitutional Lawyer, so I'm looking at him and firedgolake on this one.

I agree. But you can keep your 'enemies' close sometimes, when they have something decent to say.

[MH1]

28. True

Just don't want anyone here to get too enamored of him.

[FreedomAngel82]

46. I love that

:) I love that about Kennedy and Kerry. How they work well with people.

[karynnj]

2. Watching Feingold should be interesting

I was really disappointed that he made no public statements at all during the Alito filibuster. I just saw a comment in a Feingold (about his dKos blog)thread, the hope that now that we have identified the 25 (sic) Senators we could count (from the filibuster), that Feingold and Gore could lead us out of the darkness. I do think Feingold did a better job than many other Judiciary committee members, but he was not brilliant or a ball of fire and he not only didn't try to lead a filibuster, he publicly did nothing to help.

[Mass]

3. I would disagree with the kos comments about the 25 senators

Many have been dragged there kicking and screaming. You can probably count on about 10 senators at best for that.

Let see how the Dems will do . I was not impressed by what happened during the Alito hearings. Hopefully, this time, there will be a global strategy and not just a few people fending for themselves.

[whometense]

5. Totally agree.

You have to give them credit for getting in line, but I, for one, am not forgetting which ones had to be kicked into line, and which ones lined up willingly.

[karynnj]

15. That was a DU comment on a thread about Feingold's blog

I agree with you that several were dragged "kickicking and screaming". The point is they CAN be pushed to take Democratic positions. The Alito hearings looked like a group of Senators trying to hide that they hadn't fully done their homework. What's sad is they could have addressed what - even in the NSA case - is really the core problem - the jurisdictions of the various branches of government.

[jillan]

6. I hate to say this, but I'm afraid

these hearings are going to be a waste of time.

Gonzalez was put in there to protect and defend bsh, not our constitutional rights.

[Mass]

7. And the Republicans are allowing him to lie.

The idea that they refuse to have him take an oath is ludicrous. If he does not intend to lie, why should he not take it.

[whometense]

9. Missed that.

Really? What is this crap? What's the point of testifying at all if they don't swear people in. Ridiculous. I take back everything I said about Specter in my previous comment. :grr:

[fedupinBushcountry]

10. It is ridiculous

Sessions says he (Gonzales) is full with integrity. Well if he is why isn't he showing that integrity by being sworn in. They even lied about the proxie vote. We will get no truth out of this hearing, and the Repubs will smile and say how great he is. :puke:

[whometense]

8. I think it depends

on how aggressive Specter gets. I heard him on This Week yesterday, and he was hedging his bets, but not ruling out subpoenas for the ex-Justice people who left because they didn't like what was going on - Comey, et al.

I don't have high hopes, but I'm reserving judgement at this point.

[TayTay]

11. Sen. Leahy is smoking on this.

These are fighting Dems. Leahy made the necessary point that he goes to work each day in a building that was targeted for destruction by Al Qaeda. Neither he, nore any other Dem, is 'weak on terror.' They are, instead, strong on supporting the Constitution of the US.

Also, why didn't the Bush Admin get Osama bin Laden. They are the weak ones.

[TayTay]

12. Eyes on the Prize here

Gonzo will lie. The job of the Dems here is to not let him get away with it. We don't have subpoena power and we don't control the hearing. But we can still kick some lying Rethug ass here.

Point one: Why aren't the Rethugs putting this bastard under oath? (Hiding something guys?)
Point two: How dare you try and say that destroying the Constitution means allowing Al Qaeda to win. Why didn't you lying sacks of shit get Osama when you had the chance. Who, exactly, is soft on terrorism. We don't need to destroy the Constitution in order to be safe from terrorism.

Go Fighting Dems! Go get 'em.

[jillan]

13. listen to him!

blah blah blah

I'm a bsh puppet, pull my string, and
all of the talking points will come out.

But - he looks like shit. Look at those dark circles under his eyes.
Trouble sleeping last nite Mr Gonzales?

[TayTay]

14. He has to lie on this one

We failed to get Al Qaeda, therefore we need to commit crimes in order to make up for our failures. Oh, and Bush is a king, cuz we think he is above the law.

What a pr*ck.

[jillan]

17. and we failed to get

the terrorists that were living in the US, before 9/11 that
were on the terrorist watch list BEFORE they hijacked airplanes
while ignoring the 8/06/01 pdb.

argh!

Why isn't Kerry on the judical committee?
We need to figure out a way to get him on there.

[_dynamicdems]

16. Don't you just want to slap Gonzalas? I do. n/t

[jillan]

19. oh - here we go- "I can't talk about that"

slapping would not satisfy me right now!

[ProSense]

27. This is exactly why the Alito hearings went the way they did.

There was going to be no Republican oversight. The Democrats show brought attention to him for what some people consider silly reasons, but it was like they were trying to attract attention and demonstrate how much of a waste of time the hearings are. Biden even said the hearings should done away with. I'm not excusing the hearings because I don't agree; they need to serve the intended purpose of vetting nominees. But that's asking too much of the Republicans on the committee. Of course, had Kerry been on the committee, I believe he would have asked tougher questions.

So tough questions are in order, as TayTay says: Go fighting Dems

[whometense]

21. Blood pressure's

already through the roof.

Leahy did GREAT. That lying pathetic stooge.

[Mass]

18. Another hearing where they will miss deeply Boxer and Kerry.

They need people who know how to ask questions.

[TayTay]

20. On that point, a reminder

Hearing of SFRC on Wed on Iraq Reconstruction. That should be a goodie. Both Kerry and Boxer, the Senate's best questioners will be in attendance. Plus, this may come up Wed at the Threats reconsidered hearing on Thurs. at SFRC. This could be a good week.

[whometense]

23. These hearings perpetually

remind me of a boxing match.

The dems get these creeps on the ropes, ready to crumple to their knees, and then the bell rings, round's over, and the rethugs get time to fan them back to life.

Wouldn't it be FUN to get to see a solid uninterrupted hour of punching?

[ProSense]

29. Even on the floor that happens

Remember they cut Kerry off when he was getting fiery hot. Anyway, I agree that the Democrats need more time to deliver a knockout punch. But the Republicans will always get their moment to waste time.


Well, I'm not watching, because I'm at work, so I'm following the DU threads. This sucks.

[whometense]

30. At least the dems

are doing a lot better than they did with Alito. Good questions. And Gonzalez is a weak, weak, WEAK witness.

But if a dem asks a killer question and no one's listening, does it change anyone's mind???

[ProSense]

31. That's a good question.

How many people will follow these hearings? These days, more than usual I suspect. Still a lot of people are at work and probably will not see the replay either. But it is still up to the media to present what happened, and do it without bias. Won't happen. Good news: the blogs will make a difference.

[karynnj]

33. I doubt they can deliver a knockout punch

because few are listeneing. I think it was sheer nastinest that caused McConnell to cut Kerry off. Kerry was letter perfect in that speech, but even if he would have completed it, I really don't think it could have changed a single vote. By that point, they were likely listening to "experts" telling them the impact in their own districts. Strange though that following the advice leads them to stand for nothing.

It would have been great if Kerry would have had the time and the platform to explain the impact of Alito's positions to the American people. At some point, doesn't the pendulum have to swing back.

[_dynamicdems]

48. Yes! n/t

[jillan]

22. Why is it when Republicans in this committee question

a nominee for Supreme Ct, or in a hearing such as this
they provide the answers they seek in their questioning.

Ex- isn't it true that in this case the Pres
is allowed to spy?

Now - Hatch is bringing up Clinton.

:banghead: :banghead:

[TayTay]

24. Hatch is a lackey of the Pres.

He doesn't care about the Constitution or if the nation's highest law enforcement officer actually enforces the law.

Hatch is a Bush toadie.

Ho get 'em Teddy K.

[ProSense]

32. Impeach the AG. Is anyone still watching?

Did Biden really ask this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=334816&mesg_id=334893

[whometense]

34. If he said exactly that, I missed it.

Liveblog here: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

Firedoglake too: http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006_02_05_firedoglake_archive.html#113924365006694178

BIDEN QUESTIONING: Points out that Roberts is not planning on holding any hearings for Intelligence Committee, which Biden says is bordering on abdication of Congressional duty. Biden starts by saying that the Administration lacks credibility because their past actions have raised questions about truthfulness. How will we know when this war is over? AG: When al qaeda is destroyed – which is not today. Biden: So, you’re going to argue for continual authority to do whatever the Administration feels is necessary for so long as you feel there is a threat – which under your terms is pretty much forever, considering how al qaeda has morphed into a multi-group organization. Biden then asks if President is truly interested in fully protecting the public, why not listen to domestic calls – is it public relations or because you see that as unconstitutional? Gonzales dodges answer, pretty much, by not really giving rationale other than talking about balancing rights versus protection. How many people in NSA doing this monitoring? AG: I don’t know. (Fobbing off the responsibility for this on NSA and intel personnel. Again.) Then discussion about minimization requirements and FISA – Gonzales stammering again, discussing that they are classified, and Biden points out that this information has not been shared with the Intelligence Committee beyond perhaps the “Gang of 8" and Biden wants to know why not? Biden: Can you assure us that you, Gonzales, that you personally know the details of this and that no one is being eavesdropped on in the US under this program? AG: No, I can’t give you that assurance. (So, basically, we’re doing some domestic spying. Suck it up.) Biden takes a swipe at the Intelligence Committee and Roberts that oversight is absolutely necessary for this program.

[ProSense]

35. Cool! Thanks! n/t

[whometense]

36. P.S.

Some spectator in the hearing room just yelled out that Gonzalez is a fascist.

DeWine and Specter assured him he is not. gag.

[ProSense]

37. Wow!

Was he assuring the spectator or Gonzales? I know, but the spectator's comment is now part of the record: excellent.


Thanks for the updates! Great stuff at firedoglake.

[whometense]

38. Gonzalez.

snigger.

I got it wrong, though - it was Sessions who reassured Gonzalez, not DeWine.

[TayTay]

39. Sessions is the only person in the Senate who can

make Allen look good. Sessions is a moley little pissant bastard. I have no idea how the good people of Alabama could have elected such a wormy, kiss-ass, little bastard. He loves torture, loves squashing the constitution and loves kissing Bush's arse.

I think I hates 'em.

[whometense]

41. How funny.

I just came over here to call Sessions a whiny little pissant. He is REALLY pissing me off. "People all over the world are listening to this. It's not fair..."

[_dynamicdems]

49. Ever watch Lord of the Rings? Doesn't he remind you of

Smeagle? :evilgrin:

[TayTay]

51. Except I felt bad for Smeagle

because he didn't know what he was getting into at the beginning. Sessions knew. He is immoral, not amoral.

[_dynamicdems]

53. You are heartless indeed today, TayTay! : D Good! n/t

[ProSense]

40. Someone captured it and the t-shirt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=335372&mesg_id=335372

[Mass]

42. DiFi was very good - Rather than asking the same question 10 times

and not getting an anwer anyway, she made her points one after the other, showing how it can be a slippery slope and noting Gonzales declined to answer.

Most people are not constitutional scholars. Hearing in plain terms what the risks are is necessary.

[ProSense]

43. That was an excellent tactic. n/t

[TayTay]

44. DiFi was excellent.

She brought up the posse comitatus issue as well. I think the Dems are doing about as well as can be expected, considering how they don't have control of the hearing.

Honestly, they should have sworn Gonzo in, that was cowardly.

Someone needs to get a muzzle or taser for Sessions. He is one of the most weaselly people ever elected to the Senate. (If I were Gonzo, I wouldn't even go into a restroom with Sessions. Sessions might pull a 'Jeff Gannon' on him. His need to do so is sooooo obvious.)

[Luftmensch067]

47. LOL!!!!

Tay!!!!!!

But you are so right!

He must do agility exercises, and I don't mean for his biceps...

[_dynamicdems]

50. Swish, Slash! LOL! The claws are out! Love it! n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

45. Sometimes I feel like I'm in a soap opera

[_dynamicdems]

52. Our elected officials are a soap opera! Especially the

repugs.

[whometense]

54. Gonzalez:

"Attorney Generaling is hard work."

[TayTay]

55. Hey, Lindsey Graham was damn good today.

Every so often the fact that he was/is a JAG lawyer comes out and he does something fairly good. Then he remembers he is a Rethug and goes back to oil Bush's back. (Oh yuck. I grossed myself out on that one.)

Schumer was pretty good. Feingold killed today. He was great. DiFi surprised me though. She may have been the best questioner of the day.

[whometense]

56. I missed Feingold

(had lunch with a friend), but DiFi was fantastic. She really hammered her point home, and I loved the way she cut off his attempts to filibuster her time.

[Mass]

58. Feingold was good - He hammered the point to know whether

Gonzales lied during his confirmation hearings, but he did not have the time to go further than that.

[ProSense]

57. Schumer was good, especially given Feinstein's questions

Schumer's was a question to push because Gonzo could not answer, and was forced to look cornered. It was a simple yes or no answer and he started sweating. That's why Specter jumped in.

Took a break to watch! Will keep viewing threads. Thanks all for the play-by-play.


edited for clarity.

[wisteria]

59. Hey, do you think they know we are watching ? Maybe that is why

they are doing a good job today?

[TayTay]

60. I think, after Sen. Feingold's reference to 'pre-1776'

they are counting on us watching. (Feingold was referring to his DKos posting of last week.)

I am very happy with this, of course.

[whometense]

61. OH MY GAWD

Leahy has unleashed the terminal sarcasm.

:loveya:

Oh excuse me Mr Atty General, I forgot I couldn't ask any questions that are relevant..."

[ProSense]

63. What's happening with Leahy?

I see posts referring to U.S. mail being opened and Hamdi...?

[whometense]

64. He is usually a low-key guy,

but he is raging angry (for him).

[ProSense]

65. In the news:

The issue about opening mail and Hamdi: Gonzales citing a 2004 case for spying three years ago.

Snip...

`Slippery Slope'

Leahy asked Gonzales if intelligence officers had the authority to open first-class mail, and Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California asked if the Bush administration had other secret programs. Gonzales said he couldn't comment on hypothetical questions.

``This administration is effectively saying -- and the attorney general has said it today -- it doesn't have to follow the law,'' Feinstein said. ``All I'm trying to say is this is a slippery slope. Once you do one, there are a whole series of actions that can be taken.''

Gonzales, the only witness at today's hearing, argued that Congress gave Bush the power to order wiretapping without a warrant when it authorized the use of military force to combat terrorism after the Sept. 11 attacks. That argument drew fire from both Democrats and Republicans on the committee.

``The statutory force resolution argument that you're making is very dangerous in terms of its application for the future,'' said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican. ``I never envisioned that I was giving to this president or any other president the ability to go around'' existing processes, he said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=adHMyyhLVcTY&refer=us

Snip...

A few Members of Congress have suggested that they personally did not intend the Force Resolution to authorize the electronic surveillance of al Qaeda. But we are a nation governed by written laws, not the unwritten intentions of individuals. What matters is the plain meaning of the statute passed by Congress and signed by the President. And in this case those plain words could not be clearer.

The words contained in the Force Resolution do not limit the President to employing certain tactics against al Qaeda. Instead, they authorize the use of all necessary and appropriate force. Nor does the Force Resolution require the President to fight al Qaeda only in foreign countries. The preamble to the Force Resolution acknowledges the continuing threat -- quote -- "at home and abroad." Congress passed the Force Resolution in response to a threat that emerged from within our own borders. Plainly, Congress expected the President to address that threat -- and to do so with all necessary and appropriate force.

Importantly, the Supreme Court has already interpreted the Force Resolution in the Hamdi case. There, the question was whether the President had the authority to detain an American citizen as an enemy combatant - and to do so despite a specific statute that said no American citizen could be detained except as provided by Congress.

A majority of the Justices in Hamdi concluded that the broad language of the Force Resolution gave the President the authority to employ the traditional incidents of waging war. Justice O'Connor explained that these traditional powers include the right to detain enemy combatants - and to do so even if they happen to be American citizens. If the detention of an American citizen who fought with al Qaeda is authorized by the Force Resolution as an incident of waging war, how can it be that merely listening to al Qaeda phone calls into and out of the country in order to disrupt their plots is not?

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=60537

[ProSense]

66. Here is a link to the transcript

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020600931.html?nav=rss_politics


Gonzales pretty much read his press release as testimony.

[sandnsea]

62. Only authorization for military force

Isn't that the exact opposite of what he's been saying, that the Afghanistan authorization gives the President war authority beyond just military force?? Now he tells Brownback that the Afghanistan authorization only authorizes military force. What the hell? :shrug: