I've read this same comment several times over the years and I'd just as soon have Congress stop having show trials of this sort. Hire a prosecutor and let him have at it one on one with questioning and leave it at that.

Next time the politicians ought to pack away their egos

Thus we can be confident hell will first freeze over.

Why is there such a strict time limit anyway? Why not let each member have his 10 minutes and then have the pro come in for an hour or two?

"Next time the politicians ought to pack away their egos and let someone else take the stage."

LOL!!

.

The knew he was smart and well-briefed and arrogant — and therefore difficult to question.

Arrogant yes, but like Yoo, I don't to see how failing to answer direct questions, some of them requiring only yes/no answers, is being "smart and well-brief." Both of them danced and obfuscated. They weren't dazzling, they were evasive. The motherfuckers should be held in contempt and jailed (at least knee-capped) for failing to co-operate.

I agree. This process just makes everybody look bad. Addington looks like a prick, something he clearly revels in, and the Senators look like hacks. Surely there must be somebody on staff equivalent to Sam Dash or John Nields to at least prepare the questions.

"Next time the politicians ought to pack away their egos and let someone else take the stage."

Then we couldn't call them politicians anymore.

“Instead we had a bunch of amateurs tossing easily evaded questions at him for a few minutes apiece. It was tailor-made to allow Addington to get away with saying nothing, and that’s exactly what he did. Next time the politicians ought to pack away their egos and let someone else take the stage.”

Oughta, oughta, oughta. It won’t ever happen, of course. What we just saw was democracy working the way it always works: that is, not very well. What worries me a lot more is the extent -- judging from the polls I’m seeing -- to which a majority of the American people may actually be on the side of the torturers (and the unlimited indefinite detainers) because of their ignorance of the actual military facts on the issues. And it’s that dangerous ignorance that we ourselves should be focusing on.

It was tailor-made to allow Addington to get away with saying nothing, and that's exactly what he did.

More like it was tailor-made to allow him to get away with making them look like complete eedjits, and they were more than happy to oblige. This is why Judiciary hearings for SC nominees are such groan-inducing affairs. They're completely fruitless exercises, save those few moments when Leahy has the conch shell.

That would mean Democrats actually intended to do something with Addington's testimony, Kevin.

C'mon.

You're supposed to know better.

The rule in both the House and Senate is that each Members of a committee is guaranteed five minutes to question each witness coming before the panel. A committee may also vote to allow one designated member or staffer to engage in extended questioning of a witness for up to 30 additional minutes. If they do, the other side of the aisle also gets 30 additional minutes.

But overall, a truly brilliant point, Kevin. I mean why should we allow the elected representatives of the people to question witnesses and perform the congressional oversight function when some unknown, unaccountable professional staffer could do it? Hell, why do we even allow these silly amatuers to even sit on important committees like the Judiciary Committee!? We could even get the staff to vote in committee and on the floor for those dumb, egotistical Congressmen.

I have to agree with Kevin entirely. A professional prosecutor with power would have put Addington and Yoo away. As it was I thought Addington and Yoo effectively showed contempt for the committee. The Democrats came off looking foolish. It is not like this particular committee hasn't looked been made to look foolish before. By now everybody knows the drill. I have to wonder whose side the sadly ineffectual Conyers is on. All and all its a bad sign for the health of the Republic when the hired help shows open contempt for elected officials.

Addington seems more homo Sovieticus than American.

He is the sort of cowardly bully who would fit in with the unaccountable leadership apparatus of a totalitarian state such as the Soviet Union.

He gives no sense that he has an American-style understanding of decency, democracy, and public service. He was born in the wrong country, under the wrong system, but the deeply diseased Republican party gave him an undeserved route to power anyway.

I tend to agree with Jeff II above. I would not necessarily conclude that Addington's and Yoo's behavior shows them to be "smart and well-briefed."

It is my experience over several decades of work in various venues that arrogant prick behavior usually isn't a sign of great intelligence, but rather a mask for dishonesty or incompetence.

The arrogance and anger are intended to keep people at a distance and off-balance, because if people had an opportunity to closely examine the arrogant prick's work, they'd find that the quality of that work is surprisingly poor.

I have seen it many times where an arrogant prick is finally driven from or leaves the workplace, his or her co-workers, left to pick up the prick's workload, discover that the prick, despite his or her angry bravado, had actually done a shabby or dishonest performance of his or her work.

99% of the time, Senate hearings make me hate Congress and Senators. I can't be alone in this so who do they think they are impressing?

Oh yeah, Addington is a bastard and should be in jail.

Staff questioning is appropriate for a Congressional investigation into possibly criminal conduct. Officially, this is not what yesterday's hearing was.

On the other hand, many Congressmen are former prosecutors, some of them very good ones. Only a prior agreement among Democrats to yield time would have been been needed for one or two members of the subcommittee to pursue a coordinated line of questioning, especially since no more than a couple of Republican subcommittee members showed up (the requirement that questioning alternate between members of the two parties is waived in that case).

The man Addington reports to, and Yoo used to report to, served in Congress for over a decade. He could have told them how to wait out a standard Congressional hearing -- if they didn't take a hint from watching the much more difficult questioning Gen. Petraeus or Atty. Gen. Gonzales survived last year. A nonstandard hearing would have been worth trying, but it wouldn't have given each member of the subcommittee his TV clip and press release. There are reasons Congress gets walked over so easily, and this is one of them.

Well, although we have lots of sort-of encouraging signs nowadays (like Barack's popularity, there are still not-good signs that show that Washington is corrupt, and this is one of them. The most basic, most essential thing to do about it is to recognize it for what it is and for what your common sense tells you it is, and not start doing things like believing that guys Tim Russert and Chuck Todd are great guys all of a sudden because TV tells you so.

Could the president ever be justified in breaking the law? "I'm not going to answer a legal opinion on every imaginable set of facts any human being could think of," Addington growled. Did he consult Congress when interpreting torture laws? "That's irrelevant," he barked. Would it be legal to torture a detainee's child? "I'm not here to render legal advice to your committee," he snarled. "You do have attorneys of your own."

Although we keep getting hearings like these, nothing ever seems to happen as a result of them. The Republicans truly probably consider this a propaganda victory for them: by holding one of these events of "transparency," they preserve a superficial image that the country is not corrupt. At the same time, they put a curmudgeonly old man on display to really give it to the willowy, merely theoretical and intellectual liberals (I'm just writing what their chosen theme is, here- those aren't my characterizations of liberals, of course, but the Republicans' rhetorical themes).

This applies to virtually every hearing. The only person I've seen who comes close to having the right kind of discipline, focus and determination is Sen. Whitehouse. The rest should pool their time and give it to someone good.

I think that the vast majority of Democrats, after all these years, still believe Republicans are playing by the same rules they are. It still hasn't sunk in that Republicans long ago said, "screw the rules, we're going to kick your butts". So, Democrats go through the routine of being respectful and nice and asking pretty please for things. And the result is that they look like, are are, incompetent fools.

It was tailor-made to allow Addington to get away with saying nothing, and that's exactly what he did.

Disproving the notion that there is no honor amongst thieves...I mean politicians.

"Instead we had a bunch of amateurs tossing easily evaded questions at him for a few minutes apiece. It was tailor-made to allow Addington to get away with saying nothing, and that's exactly what he did. Next time the politicians ought to pack away their egos and let someone else take the stage."

Kevin you just don't get it...this was showmanship at it's...amateurish worse...this wasn't for thinking people at all.
Anyone with half a brain could see what was happening here...nothing...absolutely f'ing nothing because they didn't want anything to happen.
If Addington or Yoo had said, "dam, you guys are right, here, let me tell you what happened..." all their heads would've collectively imploded right on the spot because that means they would have to actually do something.
The whole thing was a charade from the start, and a colossal waste of time. In fact, it's enormous waste of taxpayer dollars, and an unconscionable contribution to the green house gases killing our planet.

i cannot begin to convey the absolute disgust i have for john conyers' abysmal chairmanship of the house judiciary committee. every fucking hearing has been an absolute washout because of the disjointed and disorganized. he spends his previous limited minutes on bullshit comraderie -- 'the distinguished gentleman'; 'the honorable lady'. not to mention his friggin delivery sounds like he'd rather be taking a fucking nap.

congress deserves the contempt of that asshole addington.

worthless pieces of shit who have betrayed their oath to protect and defend the constitution. all they are interested in protecting is their congressional seat.

robert wexler should have chaired that fucking meeting.

I'm not convinced that professional prosecutors necessarily do much better in Congressional hearings. There isn't, after all, a judge to enforce rules. So, for example, Arthur Liman, who was definitely a seasoned litigator, didn't do all that well in the court of public opinion when he contended with Oliver North.

Now I suppose it could be said that Arthur Liman didn't increase the contempt that people felt for him, which most congressmen do when they appear in these hearings, so in that sense he did a little better. But only relatively.

"It was tailor-made to allow Addington to get away with saying nothing, and that's exactly what" the Democratic Congress wanted.

Face it folks, most of our elected Dems aren't interested in looking too closely at Iraq. Or any other GOP wrongdoing.

We need better Dems. That's the next step.

Recommended reading for who think Addington belongs in jail:

Our Leaders Are Not War Criminals
The critics are deeply misguided to call for criminal investigations of people who did their best to protect the country in dire times.
by Stuart Taylor

I considered Dickhead Cheney the paragon of arrogance but his chief stiff does well too.

Addington, Yoo and the committee: Three good arguments for waterboarding.

Reminds me of Nixon's bully Erlichmann.

zak822, you're not going to get "better Dems."

That's why we need federal financing of Congressional campaigns, including (prorated in some way) for third-party candidates.

Of course, you're not going to get that, either. And Kos, two years ago, was on the record for two-party-only public finance for Congressional campaigns.

David, the last three words of your post ("by Stuart Taylor") tell me all I need to know. I lost all respect for his smug face years ago. He is one sold out SOB, who needs to get a real job.

The Democratic governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, was a close friend of Addington's during their childhood in New Mexico. As a former prosecutor, Napolitano probaly has common legal views with Addington.

Right on, Kevin-dude...but, look, this is not that hard:

Could the president ever be justified in breaking the law? "I'm not going to answer a legal opinion on every imaginable set of facts any human being could think of,"

The obvious response:

Look, asshole, nobody here is asking you to survey and comment upon "every imaginable set of facts any human being could think of." The clear sense of the question was this:

Do you, David "Asshat" Addington, know of any circumstances in which the president would be justified in breaking the law? That is, to put it in terms of something akin to game-theoretic semantics: suppose you are the president and you want to break the law, yet be justified in doing so, and suppose you can set up the case however you want it to be. Now, how would you set up the case? Can you think of any way to set IT up that'll let you accomplish your goal?

This is not rocket science. You don't have to be a lawyer to ask precise questions. Damn, I could have shredded that guy, and I've got two beers in me.

Every day in every way the Republicans show their complete disrespect for the Constitution, Law and the U.S.A. They couch it in terms of arrogance, but it's still there. When Addington sneers as he says to the committee "laws you guys pass" he says Congress is his enemy and he merely puts up with them and "their laws".

There's a lot of Bushies who oughta be in jail.

BTW, that reminds me, why aren't Rush Limbaugh, Tom Delay and Ann Coulter in jail yet?

Winston Smith:
This is not rocket science. You don't have to be a lawyer to ask precise questions. Damn, I could have shredded that guy, and I've got two beers in me.

Well, yes, you're absolutely right. But as others have pointed out above, this is a show trial. Not to railroad Addington into jail (which he should be), but rather to go through the motions and give lip service of congressional "oversight", so the Democrat's can bleat, "But we did investigate those allegations." to their constituency this fall.

Winston Smith

This is not rocket science. You don't have to be a lawyer to ask precise questions. Damn, I could have shredded that guy, and I've got two beers in me.

Well, yes, your absolutely right. As others have pointed out above, this is a show trial. Not in the sense of a Sovietesque show trial where the accused is railroaded into jail (which Addington so richly deserves to be in). But in the sense of providing lip service to the idea of congressional "oversight" so that Democrat's this fall can bleat, "But we did investigate!" to their constituency during this Fall's elections.

I'm not convinced that professional prosecutors necessarily do much better in Congressional hearings. There isn't, after all, a judge to enforce rules.

What y81 said.

There is no one in these hearings who can direct an evasive witness to answer a question.

So witnesses who don't mind looking stupid (Yoo), or forgetful (Addington), or both (Gonzales) can simply stonewall. And Congress can't even turn it into good media coverage, because stonewalling makes boring TV.

If Congress started employing its powers of imprisonment, convenient memory lapsers like Addington could be imprisoned for coercive effect, i.e. thrown in jail to jog their memories.

That's the only way to fundamentally fix this farce, and it's absolutely within Congress's powers.

I would like to voice an opinion somewhat contrary to much of what I'm hearing here. While I do think it would be interesting to see how a professional prosector would fare in this situation, I'm not sure it would make the big difference everyone is hoping for. Addington came in there not wanting to answer any of the key questions; it wasn't that the committee members weren't asking the questions in a skillful enough way. A more skillful line of questioning might very well have just gotten something like I can't remember or I can't answer that based on national security grounds, etc. I think what did come out of the hearings is that the American people get to see what a cretin Addington is, which hopefully will go towards ending the tyranny of this administration.

*

*

Yeah, unless and until you toss someone into jail for not answering your questions, they are gonna stonewall.

Of course, that's a huge political risk, not a good idea to do at the moment.

So, you go for "Wow, David Addington is a jerk, and John Yoo a bootlicker." and say its enough.

Given that any kind of special counsel to investigate the two would have to be appointed by the attorney general, and because the President would perhaps rightly pardon them anyway (for any criminal violation), it seems like Yoo and Addington are free to thumb their noses at congress.

In theory, Addington and Yoo should at least be brought up before ethics committees in their states and disbarred for knowingly aiding their clients break the law, which violates professional responsibility rules. I'm not versed enough in ethics rules/law to know whether this would first require a finding that the President actually did commit a crime, meaning he might have to be impeached by the house and convicted by the senate before any ethics hearing of the lawyers could be brought.

Not sure what kind of contempt rules there are for dodging questions but Addington and Yoo could in any case plead the 5th. Political theater indeed. Now if congress really wanted to get nasty they could try to change the special counsel law, whereby investigations could be initiated some other way--perhaps requiring an automatic investigation somehow--perhaps through some sort of independent committee--anyone have any other thoughts? Now that I think about it, I'm wondering whether Fitzgerald's appointment for the Plame affair might have been initiated to distract us from the atty general scandal and the torture memos.

THE PLAME AFFAIR was to delete any reliable information on IRAN, the next target. Its called 2 moves ahead. Stabbing Joe Wilson in the back was just gravy.

I should have thought you would have noticed by now -- the ONLY purpose of congressional hearings is TV time for congressmen.

Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but didn't Congress try something like this in the hearings on Iran-Contra? I believe they had counsel grill Oliver North for the better part of a day. The next day, when they saw the polls swinging toward the Col's direction, they decided to take over the job themselves.

Granted, there's not much chance of Addington coming off sympathetic, but this might be another instance where Congress is fighting the last war.

At some point in human discourse, talk is just not sufficient and you have to flatten your opponent's nose. If I were one of the Democrats in that hearing, I would have waited for Mr. Addington in the hallway and delivered the hardest punch I could muster, and hopefully broken that prick's nose. I would gladly go to jail to do great violence to that asshole....

What the hell did you expect?
Bogart breaking out his ball bearings?
Nicholson screaming that we can't handle the truth?
Addington wasn't going to admit to anything. He wasn't even going to show up. The victory was making him show up, and then letting him display in public what a prick he is.
He's got a long career of nothing ahead of him now--a full professorship at Pepperdine or Hillsdale, or some mortgage magnate's endowed chair at George Mason. He'll get to read about himself a lot as the memoirs pour forth, and then a long karmic career as roach scat.

". . . completely convinced of his own self-righteousness."

I suspect he was completely convinced of his own righteousness. The self part would suggest a knowledge of his own arrogance that he clearly lacks.

Eats, shoots and leaves.

People like Addington aren't self-righteous. Righteousness is a mug's game to criminals and thugs.

"I would gladly go to jail to do great violence to that asshole...."

Bill O'Reilly has that effect on me...

Just another example illustrating how the current bunch of Congressional Democrats—with few notable exceptions—are the most inept, incompetent, feckless, flaccid, cringing, and cowardly crew of politicians in the last century. A more useless bunch of mammals would be hard to find.

How is 'I'm not going to answer that" clever? Or allowed?

The simpler response?

"Yes you are. Answer the question."