Lunch break is over, afternoon session is beginning.

Gonzales has agreed to come back tomorrow, for what purpose, it's difficult for me to see; there is no real discussion going on, no real engagement, except on the part of Democrats, who are meeting a stone wall in Gonzales.

Senator Feingold is out of the gate and charging hard. He starts out reiterating his disappointment that General Gonzales wasn't sworn in, and then he goes right to Feingold's sense that Gonzales wasn't truthful in answering a specific question about Presidential authority asked of him by Feingold at Gonzales' confirmation hearing.

Gonzales insists that there is nothing inconsistent with what he said then, and what he is saying now. Feingold waltzes around for a bit, then cuts it off, but not before making it starkly clear that he considers that Gonzales was fundamentally dishonest during his confirmation hearings.

Feingold has some more crisp questions, not that different from others, but what is notable about this Senator is his ability to be tough without seeming to attack.

Whoops, that's not how Lindsey Graham sees it.

Well, this is fascinating. I should note that Feingold started out by reminding everyone that this is not a partisan issue, and specifically hailed those Republican members of the committee, including Graham, who are on the record as questioning the administration's constitutional logic and reasoning.

Senator Graham is having none of it, as he first frames what he wants us to think is a fairly tough disagreement with the administration, as fundamentally different from what we've been hearing from Democrats, which he characterizes as accusatory, partisan, attacking; Graham wants to collaborate with the administration, not have a conflict with it. But with Democrats, he’s fine with conflict, apparently.

DAMN, THIS IS WHERE THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD COME OUT AND POLITELY PUT GRAHAM IN HIS PLACE. THEY SHOULD TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH THEY'D LIKE TO COLLABORATE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION, TOO, AND ASK GRAHAM WHY HE NEVER HAS ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT COMMENTS LIKE THOSE MADE BY KARL ROVE, WHAT, A WEEK AGO, AND BY THE HEAD OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY JUST THIS SUNDAY.

Graham asks some good, hard questions about the constitutional analysis Gonzales, representing the administration, is using, but I'm not convinced his real aim isn’t to clean up their act just enough to pass muster, without really dealing with the fundamental constitutional conflict here.

Corwyn, like the other Republicans is really concerned with not questioning anything this administration does. What I’m seeing here is so shameful, such a dereliction of duty, not only to the country at large, but to the institutional power of the congress itself.

Durbin, up now; he picks up the meme of FISA being a useful tool; it's not that, he insists, it's a constitutional statuary limitation on the unlimited power of the president to wiretap or otherwise use electronic suveilliance.

Gonzales insists that what they are doing is totally consistent with FISA.

Durbin says no; he's listened to Gonzales' analysis of the statute and finds it woefully misguided. FISA is the exclusive means by which the President can conduct surveillance, and the AUMF says nothing to contradict that. Durbin also takes on the constant references by Republicans to the Supreme Court's Hamdi decision, pointing out that the court deliberately narrowed the decision’s focus to someone captured on a battle field, and that even so, Justice O'Connor reminded the administration that the President's powers are never unfettered.

Durbin was terrific, good enough that I want to look up the transcript to get it exactly right. In fact, I think I'll do that for all the best moments today, in a separate post. Durbin was especially good in reminding Gonzales that Democrats and Republicans were working to give the administration everything they needed, at the time of the original Patriot Act passage; why would the administration hesitate to ask for a change in FISA. He also finally said the words that every Democrat should be saying; what Gonzales has consistently insisted through-out this hearing that is being done under this program, to wit, use electonic surveillance exclusively to track foreign terrorists just isn't what, as described in the press, appears to be happening, and what the real fear is about is that thousands and thousands of ordinary American citizens are having their communications intercepted, or monitored by an administration that claims an almost absolute power to do so, unfettered, without any sort of oversight, by either of the other two branches of government.

Brownback; why we're in this war on terrorism; quotes Bin Laden; we're going to be in this war for decades, the cold war of our generation.

Maybe not, if you guys weren't such jerks.

We, Democrats, should be attacking this kind of statement, with reason and evidence; isn't it about time that we started scaring the American people with the prospect that we are going to find ourselves in a hundred years war with a billion Muslims if these jokers get their way.

Senator Leahy; points out congress, including Democrats have updated the FISA statute five times; he notes that the Clinton administration in 2000 used the FISA court 1000 times; Bush used it less than Clinton in 2001. (Yeah, and it showed, didn’t it?) Leahy gets angry, but in a controlled way. He’s been terrific today.

Orin Hatch wants to talk about the leakers and the Times, and the eight members who were briefed on the program, none of whom objected, according to Hatch. Apparently, Hatch doesn't know Senator Rockefeller exists.

Hatch mentions that power of the congressional purse; why haven't foes used it? Hatch is such a hack; brings up Jamie Gorelick and the Clinton administration, warrantless physical searches. I hope one of the Democrats corrects the record here. Love the way Hatch refers to Clinton's years as peacetime; Clinton was fighting these same terrorists; the difference - Republicans refused to understand the danger...right up until 9/11. Hatch goes after Walter Dellinger, as if Dellinger is being a hypocrite, when the two cases are entirely different.

As good as the Democrats have been today, I worry about the fact that this is a complicated, legal argument, and that the press will be too lazy to get it straight, at least the punditocracy, who are the laziest people on the planet. Hatch is stressing how reasonable all this is.

Of course, as Leahy was pointing out, we have no way of knowing how reasonable it is, other than the administration's reassurance, and Hatch's.

Yeah, Feinstein takes on the Aldrich Ames case and Jamie Gorelick; Feinstein got Gorelick to put it into writing, which Diane is now reading to the gathered Senators. She also notes that briefings of the big 8 she considers to be a violation of law. Gonzales disagrees, and defers to Chairman Robert's assurance it is. . Feinstein sticks to her guns. Intersting, Gonzales notes that committee Chairmen are noted for their jealous guarding of prerogative; used to be true, not so for Republicans like Pat Roberts, who serves the President, at the expense of every American citizen.

Feinstein notes those changes to FISA that the committee gave the President; why not come and ask.

Feinstein thinks it's because the program is much bigger than Gonzales is indicating in this hearing. Well, that's laying it out there.

Feinstein:"I can only believe this program is much bigger and much broader than you want anyone to know." Oh dear, Gonzales can't confirm or deny. Good, Feinstein points out that when those other Presidents were acting during wartime, there wasn't a specific statute that set out the limits of Presidential power to surveil electronically.

While Grassley chews his cud, let me make some general comments.

Being stuck at my computer, I have no idea how the cable news networks are playing the hearing. Since they already have their narrative, Americans will gladly give up something as inconsequential as their civil liberties, or the whole damn 4th amendment if necessary, in order to feel safe, it may be easy for them to play this hearing as being good for the President.

No matter what the media says, these hearings have laid out lines of attack that have to be followed up by Democrats. This is a winnable argument. Not easily winnable, but winnable.

Gonzales says, "We have a good story to tell, he only wishes he could tell it. Not an accident that we haven't been hit again. Oh, no, not Nixonian. Gonzales directs our attention to Pat Roberts reply to Howard Dean.

Grassely soft ball to Gonzales; Al Queda isn't conventional enemy, should we use conventional law enforcement to combat them. Gonzales says this is a real war. Really? Another straw war, maybe.

Feingold is up: goes after President's claim that he is using the same legal authority as other President's have used - notes that FISA wasn't in place for those Presidents.

Federal courts haven't approved their constitutional argument, according to the President and yet Gonzales can't give a post FISA court case. Gonzales sounds just like Alito in his inability to deal with a direct question when it implies a criticism of the administration.

Feingold insists that the President in the SOTU was misleading the American people. The American people need to know that you already have the authority under FISA do what you need to do to protect this country. Feingold asks if there are any other programs that might be illegal, minus the assumed authority the President feels he gets from the Authorization of Force? Wow, Gonzales asked to get back in writing.

John Kyl is actually going after Democrats for daring to question the administration. And it's disgusting. What did the President really mean in the SOTU, he asks. Gonzales says he was only talking about his inherent power, not FISA. Round and round they go. FISA is just a tool to them, not a statute passed by congress which is meant to be the guiding control on their behavior.

Schumer asks if there have been any abuses of the NSA program, any investigations of abuses, any one disciplined for abuses - this goes to the heart of the matter? He gets no where.

Senator Dewine; Group of eight, statutory authorization for this group - receive reports of covert action; he just wants to make this point. Why? The point, Senator Dewine, is that the only reason they told anyone in congress was to cover their asses, and they did so in a way which made it impossible for anyone to do anything to stop them. Oh, Dewine is a strict constructionist..yes, and your point is?

The real mystery I keep coming back to, which many Democrats have asked about again and again, why the hell didn't they come to congress; why don't they now?

KNOW WHAT I'M MOST AFRAID OF. NOT THAT THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING WILDLY ILLEGAL ON A VAST SCALE; NO, MY FEAR IS THAT THEY ARE DELIBERATELY BEING MYSTERIOUS IN ORDER TO CREATE AN ISSUE FOR THE FALL ELECTION CYCLE, AND THAT IS WHY THEY AREN'T DOING THE SENSIBLE THING, AND SHARING INFORMATION WITH CONGRESS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE IT ALL LEGAL.

IF THEY ARE FORCED TO REVEAL WHAT THEY ARE DOING, EVEN IN A CLASSIFIED SITUATION, IT'LL TURN OUT IT'S NOT THAT UNUSUAL, OR TOXIC, AND DEMOCRATS AND OTHER CRITICS WILL LOOK LIKE ANXIOUS FOOLS.

DOES ANYONE THINK WE CAN MAKE AN ISSUE OUT OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY ARE PROVOKING A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISES IN ORDER TO HAVE ANOTHER DIVISIVE ISSUE TO WIN AN ELECTION WITH?

I'm going to take a break here. I'll be back with more.

Please be aware that I'm posting this in a raw form; I will be editing it as I can.