Senate Judiciary *LIVE* Hearing - AG Gonzales on Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys [9:30 ET/CSPAN 3]

Senate Judiciary Committee/CSPAN 3 ^ | April 19, 2007

[TomGuy]

FROM THE SENATE
Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys 
Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales testifies before a Judiciary Cmte. hearing on the recent firing of eight U.S. Attorneys. Critics have questioned the motivation for the firing and the Atty. Gen.'s role in the process. The original hearing, scheduled for Tuesday, was post-
poned because of the Virginia Tech University shootings.
Thursday, 9:30 a.m. ET. CSPAN 3

[Txsleuth]

Don’t you bet that Karl Rove is watching this with interest? LOL

[Txsleuth]

DiFi asking about that law in the Patriot Act...but, I did read that the Judiciary Committee WAS aware of that being in there..when they voted for it.

Any surprise by Difi or any of them is bogus.

[wastedyears]

I’ll take 3 Rum Runners.

[HonestConservative]

Difi might want to Hillary where and when she “found” the FBI files.

She being the smartest women in the world would know.

[Clint N. Suhks]

What part of “delegation” does Frankenfinestein not understand?

[tiredoflaundry]

OK...... “catty time” ....... DiFi’s suit has sparkles??? Oh......... so tacky.......................

[Txsleuth]

I am beginning to wonder what Lam has on Difi....

[HonestConservative]

The part where one is supposed to accept or reject the work of the person to whom responsibilities have been give; for instance, when her staff might have made her aware of conflicts of interest concerning defense spending.

[tiredoflaundry]

ok...... tinfoil hat time......... I wonder if Lam was going to “spill da beans” about DiFi’s ahem “conflict of interest”, and the Admin , put the cabash on it?????

[Txsleuth]

That transcript she read sounded pretty okay with me...I sure didn’t hear anything that sounded sinister.

DiFi is the one that has been on the warpath the most..but, SHE should be sitting in the witness chair..answering questions about her OWN corruption.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Good one!

[Txsleuth]

Why would the Admin put the cabash on it??

[Txsleuth]

Recess.

[SmoothTalker]

“Gonzales isn’t doing himself allot of good by obfuscating the issue of the level of his involvement.”

This is not his best hearing. He hasn’t looked good.

[tiredoflaundry]

*tinfoil*...... Not beneficial for the country at this point?

trying to make nice with the dems??

It just seems so weird.

[HonestConservative]

How about Lam was not moving on this and other investigations?

[tiredoflaundry]

Like I said HC..... it is weird what is going on. I admit, a lot of this stuff goes over my head.

Why does the committee have their panties in a wad about something that they admit was legal.Yes I know politics, but the "underlying reasoning" confuses the crap out of me.

[Mark-in-Kentucky]

This is not his best hearing. He hasn’t looked good.

No he hasn't, and that's a rank understatement.

I'm torn on this. Gonzales is obviously a boob, and I don't like having an obvious boob in the AG spot, even setting aside this justice department's highly questionable border prosecutions. By the same token, these firings should be a non-issue—though the aforementioned boobness has made them and issue—and I'm loathe to see the democrats handed a victory on it.

Meh.

[HonestConservative]

Really.

As #2 son says, “Give ‘em an inch. Yeah, that always works”.

Has anyone made the point that the president has the right to hire and fire at his pleasure?

Dee dee dee

[HawaiianGecko]

I was just watching Feinstein run down a litany of good things said about Carol Lamm, said by well known people in powerful positions.  I'm sure there is a list at least twice as long about good things Alberto Gonzales by even more powerful people.  If she is suggesting Carol Lamm not be fired for these reasons, why is she not demanding this witch hunt end for the very same and stronger reasons?