glenn -

marty lederman has posted the complete hearing transcript: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/05/did-comey-just-testify-that-president.html

and i posted the audio... scroll down, it is the last item (#6): http://www.netrootsmass.net/page29/page29.html

(please feel free to cross post to save my bandwith)

it was an amazing hearing. wish c-span had covered it... must see tv.

In response, Alberto Gonzales refused to allow Ashcroft or Comey to testify about any such matters ... "Clearly, there are privilege issues that have to be considered," Gonzales said.

If I'm reading the description of the scene in the hospital room correctly, is Bush (via Gonzales) able to assert attorney-client privelege, at least as far as that one discussion goes? Ashcroft's wife was present, doesn't that defeat the assertion of privelege? I'll admit up front I don't know a whole lot about when privelege is waived.

There is some interesting back-up for this hypothesis of mine today, and I have added emphasis in the quotes below:

> most people secretly wish to convey the truth while they are telling lies,

> most people secretly know the truth while they are believing lies

There is a wire story here at Salon regarding AG Gonzales:

http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8P4VNR82.html

that has this quote from him regarding who made the list -

The attorney general, who has resisted calls for his own resignation, said he relied on McNulty's views more than another other adviser. Gonzales said he was reassured by his deputy as recently as March that the firings all were justified.

"The one person I would care about would be the views of the deputy attorney general, because the deputy attorney general is the direct supervisor of the United States attorneys," Gonzales said.

So, in what sounds like but cannot be semantically nailed down as a statement regarding who picked the attorneys to be fired:

IF Mr. Gonzales cared about someone's input, which he might not, he would care about Mr. McNulty's input.

Ta Dah!

and for a bonus round, the same wire article closes with a quote from Mr. Tony Snow -

"Paul also served this country very well and we certainly thank him for his service, but it certainly does not change the way in which we view the attorney general," Snow said. "Instead what we do is we thank Paul for his service."

These guys are also going to write my textbook on the weaknesses of principle/agent legal theory for me if I ever decide to write one . . .

principal / agent

insert joke about there being no principles involved here

The weight of the lawlessness has not resulted in mass resignations. I don't get that.

Remember way back when when O'neal left the administration because the decision to invade Iraq had already been made and that terrorism prior to 9-11 was not a priority?

The dangerous nature of this administration MUST have been apparent to many insiders early on and yet they've hung on, through all of these revelations.

Generals fired because the told the truth. And, many other examples.

Can it be as simple as: you're either with us or your a terrorist boot lick?

As an example, get in the way back machine, there was the white house counsels office where the Yoo memorandum and the "quaint" Geneva conventions policy was emerging. Only one lawyer from that office that I know of resigned over that. He took a nice job at Harvard law, but made no public stink about why he actually left except for some mildly critical interview he gave and then went silent.

I just don't get it.

I know there's a quote somewhere from some famous founding father about the silent and acquiescent being far worse for the health of the constitution and the republic than those actively seeking to destroy it.

Especially for those of us who participated at Glenn's old blog from the early days when he became tho blogosphere's point man on the NSA scandal, we should recall when it seemed almost no one else was paying attention, and those who insisted Bush was in wholesale violation of a criminal statute were wrong, "radical leftists," pro-terrorist, and anything but right. Imagine, had it been known then that there had been a huge uprising of threatened resignations in the DoJ over the criminality.

Glenn and the few others who saw and proclaimed the truth when doing so was made to seem to be a marginal position held by a fringe group of mindless Bush haters deserve enormous credit.

Another interesting spot in the news conference.

SNOW: ... Helen.

Q: You've already laid down a non-negotiable position, and you talk about, oh, we're not going to talk about it and all this. Is nothing going on? And do the American people have any say about this? They want to withdraw.

SNOW: The American -- again, if you take a look -- for instance, if you want to live and die by the polls, Helen, 60 percent of the American public say, let's go ahead and fund them.

Q: Okay. They also say, let's get out.

SNOW: Well, they do want to get out, but they also want to get out under circumstances of victory.

A bold lie. The polls say unequivocally that the public wants out, regardless of outcome.

Q Well, is the President listening to them?

SNOW: Of course. And the President also -- you've got to keep in mind, being President is a listening exercise and a leading exercise. And as a leader, not only as a Commander-in-Chief --

Q Does he think they should abide by any of their will?

SNOW: Yes, he does. But he also thinks that the will of the American people is to be safe and secure, and that's his foremost concern.

And what polling tells us this? And how does Iraq actually make us safer? Questions that were not asked nor answered.

This just confirms why George Bush stands by Gonzales as his Attorney General and appointed him in the fist place. It has nothing to do with George's blind loyalty to Alberto. The political cost of publicly supporting Gonzales is nothing compared to the value of having Gonzales 1) use the power of the office to cover up for administration malfeasance 2) take the heat off the White House. Bush and Rove are just fine with the prosecutors scandal because they know it's just such small potatoes.

We have an Attorney General of the United States using his office to impede investigations into shenanigans he was a part of while he was White House Counsel. Amazing!