With Congress and the all important Senate Judiciary Committee out on summer recess until next Tuesday, President Bush could make a recess appointment to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales indicated that he will serve until September 14, but I'm sure he's flexible.

Regardless, the Gonzales resignation has put a huge cramp into the Democrats' plans for the beginning of September, which they wanted to dedicate to the "failure" in Iraq prior to General David Petraeus' report to them on September 11 (a date chosen by the Democrats, by the way). If there is no recess appointment, there will be a rush to confirm whomever the president selects by the middle of September, lest the Democrats risk being publicly attacked for not manning the ship at Justice around the anniversary of 9/11.

In all the hew and cry over the recent FISA vote to give expedited surveillance powers to the discredited AG Alberto Gonzales (so he could authorize wiretaps, etc without having to go to a FISA court), something important has been missed. In fact, it's possible the vote was designed to split the Dems and create a false scenario that Dems don't want to protect this country as a bonus. But the real reason was to distract attention from the "rest of the story."

This administration has been spying extensively on Americans collecting all kinds of information most of which has nothing to do with overseas communication or the 'war on terror' and much more to do with expanding the unitary executive (aka dictator). How do we know this?

Recall former acting AG Comey's testimony We heard about the hospital scene but what else is in that testimony? Recall Comey testifying that the administration was involved in something so illegal that Comey and at least eight other high-ranking Administration officials were prepared to resign had the activity continued. Let's think about that. High level career Justice Department officials don't threaten to resign over nothing.

The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter, had given Attorney General Alberto Gonzales until noon today to provide the committee with a plausible explanation that could be made public which would explain the discrepancies between his testimony and the testimony of his FBI Director, Robert Mueller, under oath before Congress. Well, the answer came from the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, not from Gonzales, and not by noon. I guess it's the best they could come up with:

The reason for the difference in recollections was that at the time, the Warrantless Surveillance Program wasn't officially called the Terrorist Surveillance Program...so they were really talking about the same thing.

Really. Kind of ranks right up there with "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is". Not sure this will satisfy the senators. Also, relations between the Justice Department and the FBI are reportedly pretty icy at the moment. No surprise there.

There was a little noticed article in Sunday's Washington Times that became very important when combined with Sunday's New York Times article, Mining of Data Prompted Fight Over U.S. Spying. The Washington Times article reported on the response made by the White House to claims by the Democrats that Gonzales had committed perjury. Apparently, the line of questioning itself by the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee was an orchestrated set-up:

White House officials accused senators of asking Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales questions about a program they knew he could not address in public, in order to justify their calls for an investigation by a special prosecutor. "You've got an interesting situation when members of Congress, knowing that somebody is constrained by matters of classification, they can ask very broad questions ... they know the person sitting on the other side cannot answer thoroughly in an open session," White House spokesman Tony Snow said. "You can create any kind of perception you want, by saying, well, can't you finish the answer, or why don't you tell us this, or why don't you tell us that, knowing perfectly well that there are very real constraints there," Mr. Snow said.

This explains the weak responses from the Democrats in general on Sunday and yesterday after the New York Times piece was published. Even after it became apparent that Gonzales was talking about the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program when he said that there was no argument among top Justice officials, Democrats desperately tried to claim that James Comey and Robert Mueller's testimony that there was disagreement about another secret program still showed that Gonzales lied to them under oath, even though the NYT's proved otherwise.

The Democrats got caught sandbagging someone under oath in an attempt to illegally entrap him. I'll bet that they never thought that it would be the New York Times that would blow their cover.

Though evidently there are a few still out there in the blogosphere. In fact, Chris Wallace, and Fox News Sunday put out a call to Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to come forth and defend the embattled Attorney General, and guess what? In what may be a first in political history, the microphones were silent. It seems that the only GOP guy up to the task was the ever-reticent presidential candidate, New Gingrich, who laid it on the line without much prodding. Watch:

Yes, it seems that everyone except the aforementioned bloggers knows a bogus story-line when one hears it. After watching his outlandish performances before congress, those who would continue to defend Alberto Gonzales show themselves to be the most die-hard partisans.

While I'm loath to defend Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, I must in this case. For a while now we've heard the cries of the media, the Democrats, and the left that they have proof that Gonzales committed perjury during his testimony before the Senate. The genesis: subsequent testimony by FBI Director Robert Mueller who claimed that the "fight" at then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's bedside was over a NSA program. Gonzales, in his testimony, claimed that the argument was not over the previously identified NSA Terrorist Survelence Program. Democrats and the media screamed out that Gonzales committed perjury, and promptly called for a Special Prosecutor to be appointed to charge the attorney general.

Well, the New York Times (of all media outlets) confirms that what Gonzales and the White House has been saying all week is correct -- it was a different NSA program, previously classified and not officially disclosed (although poorly speculated on by the NYT), that the fight was about.

A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency's secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, according to current and former officials briefed on the program.

...The N.S.A.'s data mining has previously been reported. But the disclosure that concerns about it figured in the March 2004 debate helps to clarify the clash this week between Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senators who accused him of misleading Congress and called for a perjury investigation.

In a pretty remarkable moment of candor, Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer told an audience that he was going to unilaterally revise the "advice and consent" clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) of the U.S. Constitution:

"We should reverse the presumption of confirmation," Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. "The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito."

In a way this has just verbally "codified" the Democrats' position since the Reagan administration. They think that when a Republican is president, the Democrats should be able to submit judicial candidates that meet their requirements to the president, then they get to appoint them after confirmation hearings.

That's not the way it is supposed to work. The president nominates, the Senate advises and consents, and the president appoints. It has also been held that the Senate's consent isn't final. After the Senate votes to confirm, the president can deliberate further, or can drop the nomination without appointing that particular nominee. Could the opposite also be true -- if the Senate bases its opposition on pure ideology, could the president then ignore the consent clause? Not under present case law, but what if this latest "constitutional crisis" goes further?

When our Founding Fathers wrote and ratified the Constitution, the main elements that were of most import were the inherent freedoms of speech, the press and religion. On a par with those freedoms, they intended for there to be a series of checks and balances so that no branch of the government grew too big and powerful. The Legislative Branch (Congress) makes the laws, the Executive Branch (the president) signs them into law after review and the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) interprets them or decides the constitutionality of each. It's a process that has worked for over two hundred years and has worked well.

Enter those two judicial geniuses Senators Arlen Specter (RINO-PA) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). They don't think the newest members of the court are doing things exactly as they would like and they want to question them about it.

First Specter:

"There are things he has said, and I want to see how well he has complied with it," Specter said, singling out Roberts.

Specter is an attorney and as such knows exactly what the decisions mean and how they complied with what John Roberts told the Judiciary Committee. Specter, as is his wont, is carrying water for his Democratic brethren and handing the Democrats one hell of a campaign issue. Thank you Senator Specter.

Now Durbin:

"Certainly Justice Roberts left a distinct impression of his service as chief justice. And his performance on the court since, I think, has been in conflict with many of the statements he has made privately, as well as to the committee," said Durbin, who was unaware of Specter's idea.

"They are off to a very disturbing start, these two new justices. I am afraid before long they will call into question some of the most established laws and precedents in our nation."

This is not just politically annoying, it is chilling.

Major update on the story yesterday about Leahy's Judiciary Committee issuing subpoenas to anything in the administration that has a pulse. Today Bush said emphatically, ummm, no.

Bush rejected subpoenas for documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor. The White House made clear neither one would testify next month, as directed by the subpoenas.

Presidential counsel Fred Fielding said Bush had made a reasonable attempt at compromise but Congress forced the confrontation by issuing subpoenas. "With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation."

The assertion of executive privilege was the latest turn in increasingly hostile standoffs between the administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the Iraq war, executive power, the war on terror and Vice President Dick Cheney's authority. A day earlier, the Senate Judiciary Committee delivered subpoenas to the offices of Bush, Cheney, the national security adviser and the Justice Department about the administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

And the everlasting dance continues. When Bill Clinton was president the Democrats were proud defenders of executive privilege while the Republicans were aghast at Bill Clinton's unprecedented use of the same. Now it's a Republican administration so, "All Change!" And roles are reversed.

I do think there is such a thing as executive privilege and that means that the president is free to consult his aides about weighty decisions in private. There's a point where the privilege defense doesn't work anymore, but that point is reached well after an actual crime is committed. So far there is no evidence of any crime. Unless governing the country contrary to Democrat preferred policy decisions is a crime.

The latest round of the popular Washington, D.C. game of "Dick Cheney Gotcha" played out today:

The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday for documents relating to President Bush's warrant-free eavesdropping program.

Also named in subpoenas signed by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., were the Justice Department and the National Security Council.

The committee wants documents that might shed light on internal squabbles within the administration over the legality of the program, said a congressional official speaking on condition of anonymity because the subpoenas had not been made public.

Can you say "fishing expedition"? I knew you could. Of course one of the biggest perks to controlling the Senate Judiciary Committee is the power of the subpoena and Patrick Leahy here is using it to maximum effect, hanging on any thread of illegalness to try to find something to politically embarrass the vice president.

Yesterday, fellow Stump blogger Phil Bailey posted here on former Deputy Attorney General James Comey's testimony about the administration's pressuring of then Attorney General John Ashcroft to approve the NSA wiretapping program. After watching the video clip that was also posted, I'm not surprised that Phil (and others) would come to the conclusion he did -- it appears shocking.

But there's a lot more to the story, including the fact that according to Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee staff, James Comey has performed admirably as one of Sen. Chuck Schumer's moles within the Justice Department. He was also one of the people who gave us Patrick Fitzgerald as a special prosecutor to embarrass the administration, and really should never have been in the position he held in the first place, at least not in a Republican administration.

Tuesday's hearing was a passion play put on by Schumer for the media and adoring Democrats. The storyline -- the Bush administration used immoral and covert means to achieve an illegal end -- is the NSA program. There's a little problem with that narrative, however: in testimony not reported on in the media but in the transcript and tape of the hearing, Comey changed his orchestrated tune when being questioned by (no-friend of the president) Sen. Arlen Specter.

And he's likely to keep it if this AP report is any indication:

Bolstered by a fresh show of support from President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales sought Monday to move beyond calls for his resignation and lingering questions about his credibility after the firings of federal prosecutors.

Critics reluctantly conceded that Gonzales was likely to weather the political storm. But many scoffed at Bush's claim of having more confidence in his attorney general after Gonzales' Senate testimony last week that was filled with memory lapses.

They can scoff all they want, the point is that Bush doesn't look like he's going to make a move and the House and Senate don't have the juice to force a move.

Today's the day. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been prepping for this moment for weeks, trying to get his story straight. The man who has "nothing to hide" will now try to convince the Senate Judiciary Committee that the way his office handled the firings of eight federal prosecutors amounted to "honest mistakes," rather than a political junta. The problem for Gonzales is that he doesn't exactly have a gift with language. By his own reckoning, he's partly in this mess because he has been, as he says, "less than precise with my words."

As the testimony comes in today, I'd like to have our readers offer their opinions on this live thread. We'll update and highlight some of your observations as we go. How did Gonzales do? Were the questions fair? Will Gonzales keep his job? Fire up the popcorn, it should be an entertaining morning.

Running Updates

Opening Statements: Leahy comes out swinging, but so does everyone, including the Republicans on the committee. The burden of proof has shifted to the A.G.

Early Trouble: A very testy exchange between Specter and Gonzales. What's up with Specter's eye, by the way? Gonzales is killing himself with his defiant attitude.

Not My Fault: Senator Kennedy asks, If Gonzales played a limited role in the firings, and didn't know all reasons behind them, then how could he be sure that his uderlings weren't acting impoperly?

Reasons for the Firings: Senator Brownback gives Gonzales the chance to explain his reasons for the firings. Strangely, by his own admission, Gonzales found the reasons in retrospect, "using hindsight," as he said.

Feel the Love: Senator Hatch says, you're the best, Alberto! Throws up one softball question after the other. "You spend a lot of time traveling around the country, don't you?" Fascinating.

From T.B., A Stump Reader: "I would love to comment, but 'I can't recall' what I was going to say."
T.B., you're not the only one. More video clips after the jump.

It's funny we haven't heard about this in the mainstream media, although the investigation that forced Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein to resign from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee has been reported on since the middle of January...

In the November 2006 election, the voters demanded congressional ethics reform. And so, the newly appointed chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is now duly in charge of regulating the ethical behavior of her colleagues. But for many years, Feinstein has been beset by her own ethical conflict of interest, say congressional ethics experts.

As chairperson and ranking member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON) from 2001 through the end of 2005, Feinstein supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars a year for specific military construction projects. Two defense contractors whose interests were largely controlled by her husband, financier Richard C. Blum, benefited from decisions made by Feinstein as leader of this powerful subcommittee.

Remarkable. At first glance, this looks way bigger and more brazen than the scandal that put Republican Representative Duke Cunningham in prison after being forced to resign from the House. The only difference is that Cunningham personally received payments from the party that benefited from the awarding of contracts. In Feinstein's case, the money received from those billions of dollars of contracts awarded to her husband when she was the ranking member of the subcommittee benefited her by going into her marital estate.

Global Warming denier James Inhofe pulled a cute trick yesterday when questioning Al Gore. Demanding that Gore sign a pledge to keep his energy consumption commensurate with that of the average American household, Inhofe showed more of the double-talk he's become famous for over the years. Of course, he doesn't really think anyone should curb energy, because, he asserts, humans have nothing to do with the rise in global temperatures. So the pledge request is nothing but an adolescent-minded "gotcha" move. He knows Gore lives in a huge mansion which he uses for office space for his staff, and that Gore buys carbon offsets to try and address his large footprint.

Inhofe will probably be the last person on the planet to continue denying the link between humans and global warming. Even President Bush now sounds like a Berkeley tree-hugger in comparison. But at yesterday's hearing, Inhofe's attempt to bully Gore really didn't go over so well. Inhofe found himself "smacked down" as one Stump reader put it, by California Congresswoman Barbara Boxer. Part of the scolding, as requested, can be viewed below.