David Drummond, Google's Senior Vice President of Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights at a September 27, 2007 hearing about online advertising and Google's acquisition of DoubleClick. Topics of discussion include how Google's advertising network benefits consumers, the competitive nature of the online advertising business, and the high importance Google places on protecting users' privacy.

Goodling's opening statement

David Drummond, Google's Senior Vice President of Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, testifies before the House Judiciary Committee Antitrust Task Force at a July 15, 2008 hearing about competition and the Google-Yahoo! ad agreement. Topics of discussion include how the agreement benefits users, advertisers, and publishers, and the competitive nature of the online advertising business.

(Part 1 of 2) David Drummond, Google's Senior Vice President of Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights at a July 15, 2008 hearing about competition and the Google-Yahoo! ad agreement. Topics of discussion include how the agreement benefits users, advertisers, and publishers, and the competitive nature of the online advertising business.

Dennis Kucinich testifies before House Judiciary Committee for Bush impeachment 7-25-08

House Judiciary Committee hearings on the Jamie Leigh Jones gang rape by Halliburton/KBR employees

U.S. Attorney Donald Washington & the Justice Department are on the hot seat. The U.S. Justice Department is questioned for its "inability" to bring hate charges against the students who hung nooses under a "white" tree on school campus in Jena, La. In this segment, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) is doing the questioning.

The Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties is currently holding a hearing, "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Response to Air Quality Issues Arising from the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001: Were There Substantive Due Process Violations?" Former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman will testify, amongst others. Subcommittee Chairman Jerrold Nadler questions Whitman.

Vincent Bugliosi's opening statements during the House Judiciary Committee hearing on the constitutional limits of executive power.

House of Judiciary Committee Hearing on Internet Gaming on 11/14/2007.(Part 7 of 22). For complete details on the hearing go to judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=396

Part 10 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Senator Dianne Feinstein questions Gonzales. 7/24/07 KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he would be asked beforehand. Nothing was a surprise - there was absolutely NO "GOTCHA!" Transcript of this portion of the hearing: FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, I've sat here and listened particularly to the opening comment of the chairman and the ranking member, and in my time in the Senate, I have never heard comments quite like that coming from both sides of the aisle. And then I listened to your response, which was nonresponsive which went into something about FISA, unrelated to anything that had been said. I don't think you understand what's happening in the Department of Justice, the diminution of credibility, integrity. It's almost as if the walls were actually crumbling on this huge department. FEINSTEIN: And I listen to you. And nothing gets answered directly. Everything is obfuscated. You can't tell me that you went up to see Mr. Comey for any other reason other than to reverse his decision about the terrorist surveillance program. That's clearly the only reason you would go to see the attorney general in intensive care. GONZALES: May I respond to that? FEINSTEIN: Yes, you may. GONZALES: OK. You're right. This is an extraordinary event. But we were confronting extraordinary circumstances where we had been advised that something that the department had authorized for two years, they would no longer continue to approve. We'd just been advised by the congressional leadership: Go forward anyway. And we felt it important that the attorney general, General Ashcroft, was aware of those facts. Clearly, if we had been confident and understood the facts and was inclined to do so, yes, we would have asked him to reverse the DAG's position. But... FEINSTEIN: Well, then, why would he have said Mr. Comey is in charge, if you hadn't asked him? GONZALES: I don't understand the question. FEINSTEIN: Well, clearly you asked him the question, because James Comey testified to us that... GONZALES: My recollection, Senator, is -- and, of course, this happened some time ago and people's recollections are going to differ. My recollection is that Mr. Ashcroft did most of the talking. At the end, my recollection is, he said, "I've been told it would be improvident for me to sign. But that doesn't matter, because I'm no longer the attorney general." FEINSTEIN: OK. All right. GONZALES: And once he said that, Secretary Card and I didn't press him. We said thank you, and we left. FEINSTEIN: OK. GONZALES: But, again, we went there because we thought it important for him to know where the congressional leadership was on this. We didn't know whether or not he knew of Mr. Comey's position and, if he did know, whether or not he agreed with it. FEINSTEIN: All right. I think we've taken care of this. What I'd like to establish, once and for all, is who put the names on the list to fire what are now nine U.S. attorneys. Since you were here last, we've had a number of your top staff appear before us. Kyle Sampson, your former chief of staff, said, "I was the aggregator of input that came in from different sources." Paul McNulty said it was presented to me as here is the idea and here are the names of individuals that are being identified. Jim Comey said, "I was not aware there was any kind of process going on." FEINSTEIN: Bill Mercer said, "I didn't understand there was a list. I didn't keep a list." Mike Battle: "A decision was made to compile a list. It was made by someone. I had no input. Nobody asked for my input." Will Moschella: "Since I was not part of that process, I don't have firsthand knowledge." Mike Ellston: "Kyle asked me to give him my thoughts, give him a draft list. I said, sure. I didn't actually do it. I was very busy." Who approved those names? GONZALES: I ultimately approved the list of recommendations that were submitted to me. I accept responsibility. FEINSTEIN: And how many names did you approve for firing? GONZALES: I think, on the list that was presented... FEINSTEIN: Oh, no -- total. How many names have you approved for firing? GONZALES: You mean total, for cause, not for cause? I'd have to get back to you on that. FEINSTEIN: There were seven on December 7. GONZALES: Seven on December 7. FEINSTEIN: We're now up to nine that we know about. How many -- this is important -- how many U.S. attorneys did you approve to be summarily fired? GONZALES: Senator, there may have been others. I would be happy to get back to you with that kind of information about who has left. But I don't know the answer to your question. But I can certainly find out. FEINSTEIN: You don't know, after all we've been through, the hearing after hearing after hearing? GONZALES: Well, in connection with this review process that Mr. Sampson was coordinating, what was presented to me was a list of seven individuals, on December 7. And so those are the seven that I accepted the recommendation to ask for resignation. FEINSTEIN: That's right. But those were the ones that were called on December 7 and told to leave by January 15. GONZALES: Yes. FEINSTEIN: There were others also asked to resign. GONZALES: Yes. FEINSTEIN: And I'm asking what the total number were. GONZALES: Well, certainly, Mr. Cummins was asked to leave. Mr. Graves was asked to leave. I'm not aware, sitting here today, of any other U.S. attorney who was asked to leave, except there were some instances where people were asked to leave, quite frankly, because there was legitimate cause. FEINSTEIN: So you're saying these were asked to leave because the cause was not legitimate? GONZALES: I'm not saying -- no, what I'm saying is wrongdoing, misconduct. There may been some -- in fact, I'm sure there were others... FEINSTEIN: What kind of misconduct? GONZALES: Well, for -- and I'm not suggesting any of this conduct happened, but, for example, an inappropriate relationship, taking action where you have a direct conflict of interest, to help out a buddy, making a -- you know, those kinds of -- something like that, I would say, would constitute misconduct. And there... FEINSTEIN: Were those specific things involved in any U.S. attorney that was terminated? LEAHY: Good question. GONZALES: No. With respect to the seven and with respect to Mr. Cummins and with respect to Mr. Graves, I am not aware that -- certainly, it wasn't, in my mind, a problem or basis to accept the recommendation that they be asked to leave. FEINSTEIN: All right. Let me go to something else. You, of course, recognize these books, "The Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses." In prior hearings, we had the 1995 edition. FEINSTEIN: Since May of this year, there is now a new edition. I'd like to read to you what has been dropped from the earlier edition. The first thing that's been removed is this: "The Justice Department generally does not favor prosecution of isolated fraudulent voting transactions. This is based in part on constitutional issues that arise when federal jurisdiction is asserted in matters having only a minimal impact on the integrity of the voting process." This was removed in this new edition. The second thing: "The Justice Department must refrain from any conduct which has the possibility of affecting the election itself." This is weakened on page 92. This language is removed. "Federal prosecutors and investigators should be extremely careful to not conduct overt investigations during the pre-election period of while the election is under way." Removed. Then a sentence that's underlined in the '95 edition, which states thus: "Most, if not all, investigations of an alleged election crime must await the end of the election to which the allegation relates." It was removed in this new edition. Weakened was this language: "It should also be kept in mind that any investigation undertaken during the final stages of a political contest may cause the investigation itself to become a campaign issue." Why was it necessary to remove this language in this new edition in the Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses rules? GONZALES: Senator, I don't -- sitting here today, I don't know the answer to that question. I would like to find out, because I am certainly committed to ensuring that we're smart in the way that we do investigations and prosecutions and we do in a way that doesn't intimidate voters, that doesn't chill potential voters from coming out and voting on Election Day. So I would like the opportunity to look into this and respond back to you. FEINSTEIN: Appreciate it. It becomes more relevant because two and possibly three of the fired U.S. attorneys were fired because they didn't bring those small cases that might affect an election. And therefore, when one looks at this book now, sees a new book coming out in May '07 that deletes the very things that these U.S. attorneys were told to follow, something's rotten in Denmark. GONZALES: Thank you for the opportunity for me to look into that. FEINSTEIN: I appreciate that. Thank you very much. My time is up.

June 20, 2008

The Judiciary Committee holds a "Meeting to Consider: a Resolution and Report Recommending to the House of Representatives that Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten be Cited for Contempt of Congress." Yesterday the Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers prepared a 52-page memo "that for the first time alleges specific ways that several administration officials may have broken the law during the multiple firings of U.S. attorneys."

Nicole Wong, Deputy General Counsel for Google, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law at a May 20, 2008 hearing on Global Internet Freedom. Topics of discussion include Google's commitment to freedom of expression, our efforts to meet challenges posed by legal and cultural barriers to the free flow of information, and the role of governments in reducing Internet censorship and promoting free expression.

Keith reports on today's House Judiciary Committee hearing on the constitutional limits of executive power and discusses the hearing with one of the witnesses, Presidential candidate Bob Barr.

MPs question Judiciary

Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey testifies that Alberto Gonzales, as White House counsel, tried to get AG John Ashcroft, critically ill on his hospital sickbed, to approve an NSA program the Justice Department had serious legal doubts about

Wexler Questions former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan in House Judiciary Committee on June 20, 2008.

http://cspanjunkie.org/ July 15, 2008 C-SPAN

Property rights, economical justice and equality, judicial power. McCain says he is a GOP with no money. Should Obama spread the wealth so McCain can advertise? John McCain Appeared on SNL 11/1/2008 with Tina Fey; Nov 1, 2008 McCain made fun of himself; QVC; Sarah Palin Pranked by fake French President Sharkozy call -- Palin was approachable. Obama Biden On Social Justice; Saturday Night Live; Most People Support Redistribution of Wealth McCain SNL 11/1/2008 Nov 2008 Sarah Palin Pranked Obama Biden On Social Justice Saturday Night Live.

Ex-Navy Instructor Malcolm Nance and Air Force Reserve Colonel Steve Kleinman testify before the House Judiciary Subcommittee about waterboarding and torture, November 8, 2007

Part 1 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy opens the hearing (Leahy's statement is continued in Part 2). 7/24/07 KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he would be asked beforehand. Nothing was a surprise - there was absolutely NO "GOTCHA!" Transcript of this portion of the hearing: LEAHY: Good morning. I'd ask those who are standing in the back to show courtesy to the people who are -- who stood in line to be here to sit down. Everybody is welcome here who's here. But I would expect all those who are in here for the hearing to respect the rights of everybody who's here and to not stand and block those who are trying to watch the proceedings and have a right to be here. Three months ago, when Attorney General Gonzales last appeared before this committee, I said that the Department of Justice was experiencing a crisis of leadership perhaps unrivaled during its history. Unfortunately, the crisis has not abated. Until there is independence and transparency and accountability, the crises will continue. The attorney general's lost the confidence of the Congress and the American people. But through oversight we hope to restore balance and accountability to the executive branch. The Department of Justice must be restored to being worthy of its name. It should not be reduced to another political arm of the White House; it was never intended to be that. Trust and confidence of the American people in federal law enforcement must be restored. With the department shrouded in scandal, the deputy attorney general's announced his resignation. The nominee to become associate attorney general requested that his nomination be withdrawn, rather than testify under oath at a confirmation hearing. The attorney general's chief of staff, the deputy attorney general's chief of staff, the department's White House liaison and the White House political director have all resigned, as have others. I would joke that the last one out the door should turn out the lights, but the Department of Justice is too important for that. We need to shine more light there, not less. LEAHY: Investigation into the firing for partisan purposes of United States attorneys who had been appointed by this president, along with an ever-growing series of controversies and scandals, have revealed an administration driven by a vision of an all-powerful executive over our constitutional system of checks and balances, one that values loyalty over judgment, secrecy over openness and ideology over competence. The accumulated and essentially uncontroverted evidence is that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States attorneys last year. Testimony and documents show that the list was compiled based on input from the highest political ranks in the White House, that senior officials were apparently focused on the political impact of federal prosecutions and whether federal prosecutors were doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases, and that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover-up. What the White House stonewalling is preventing is conclusive evidence for who made the decision to fire these federal prosecutors. We know from the testimony that it was not the president. Everyone who's testified has said that he was not involved. None of the senior officials at the Department of Justice could testify how people were added to the list or the real reasons that people were included among the federal prosecutors to be replaced. Indeed, the evidence we've been able to collect points to Karl Rove and the political operatives at the White House. The stonewalling by the White House raises the question, what is it that the White House is so desperate to hide? The White House has asserted blanket claims of executive privilege despite officials' contention that the president was not involved. They refuse to provide any factual basis for their blanket claims, have instructed former White House officials not to testify about what they know and then instructed Harriet Miers to refuse even to appear as required by a House Judiciary Committee subpoena. Now, anonymous officials are claiming that the statutory mechanism to test White House assertions of executive privilege no longer govern. In essence, the White House asserts its claim of privilege is the final word, the Congress may not review it and, of course, there's no court dare review it. Here again, this White House claims to be above the law. My oath, unlike those who have apparently sworn their allegiance to the president, is to the United States Constitution. I believe in checks and balances and in the rule of law. Despite the stonewalling and obstruction, we've learned that Todd Graves, U.S. attorney in the Western District of Missouri, was fired after he expressed reservations about a lawsuit that would have stripped many African-American voters from the rolls in Missouri.

Two decades have passed since the 1988 judiciary crisis. But the effects still linger. The phrase 'judiciary crisis of 1988' is generally understood as relating to the suspension and sacking of Supreme Court judges including the then Lord President Salleh Abas. Story in Malaysiakini.com. Camera: Mohd Kamal Ishak Editing: Indrani Kopal

(Part 2 of 2) David Drummond, Google's Senior Vice President of Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights at a July 15, 2008 hearing about competition and the Google-Yahoo! ad agreement. David contrasts the Google-Yahoo! agreement with the potential acquisition of Yahoo! by Microsoft.

http://newsproject.org On two consecutive days, hearings conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee were suspended when Republicans invoked the rarely used "two hour rule" that states no hearing can run more than two hours. ANP cameras were covering both hearings as part of ongoing stories and were able to capture the latest moves in the political chess match both parties are currently waging on Capitol Hill.