ask…etc. Congressional interrogation as a programming flowchart. Hee hee!

However I have one quibble (yeah, I should tell him there too, but am always hesitant to jump in on one of the Big Name blogs, being a schmuck and an nobody and shy and stuff):

Down in the “Monica Goodling” segment AL says (putting these words into the mouth of the Senatorial inquisitor, for those who have not yet gone and read the whole thing which they should do forthwith):

Mr. Gonzales, you are the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. Putting that hat on for a moment, imagine you were overseeing an investigation into a large company, and one of its senior officers refused to speak with you, choosing instead to invoke the Fifth Amendment. Under those circumstances, would you simply accept the CEO’s assurance that “nothing inappropriate” had happened? Really?

And wouldn’t the DOJ, as a matter of policy, insist that the company fire the uncooperative employee? Why was Monica Goodling allowed to remain on the Justice Department payroll after invoking the Fifth Amendment? Why was she not fired?

I like the general trend of the question but am not sure about the “wouldn’t the DOJ..insist that the company fire the uncooperative employee.” The DOJ is not a fucking Human Resources department. They are not in charge of hiring or firing at any private business. They are in the business of investigating crime and when faced with an “uncooperative employee” at a firm under investigation, particularly one who had loudly announce they intended to plead the Fifth, would proceed in some legal fashion. Subpoena-ing the person involved, making an offer of immunity, etc. I’m thinking of the recent Hewlett-Packard case although the substance is not entirely parallel.

I just think it’s a bad comparison overall and needs rephrasing. Bring it back to the DoJ being the attorney for the United States government, or for the American people, or some such phrasing.

The double prong here is to subtext the point that Gonzo does not work for Bushco in his present job as he did in his last one, he works for us. Even against the President if need be because the President is breaking the law. Invocation of the name of Archibald Cox at this point could be productive. :)

Anyway, aside from that this list is a work of genius, both in substance and structure. Ideally this list should be passed around and one senator assigned to cover each segment as his or her entire questioning of Abu Al. I particularly liked AL’s suggestion to skip the fucking introductory crap, it’s boring and wastes time that should be spent making Abu G squirm. And sweat, and turn interesting colors, and stammer a lot, and have to turn to his own counsel every three words to see if there’s any way to answer and not land his ass in the slam, and lose control of his bodily functions if done right.

That would be Must See Tee Vee. :)

I had the same quibble but think it’s otherwise a wisely conceived flowchart that our reps — click here to find yours — should know about.

www.vastleft.com

and did leave a comment at C&L. Decided it was wiser to lead off my first appearance with a compliment so said stroking things to ALib about his point advising the Senators on skipping the introductory speechifying which so often plagues hearings of this sort.

Once they think I’m a nice person I’ll let slip more of my true personality. :)

They don’t just say the Commmitee’s going to be mean to them and not show up. Why are the Dems being weak on this?

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.