I agree that there should not be an issue of thousands and thousands of cases with state secrets invocations, and also that in many of the “more numerous” instances, it would involve families of related cases (like the state privacy law cases or the wiretap cases etc.) where numerous invocations may all be based upon one departmental determination and aspect.

How did she vote of Gonzo and Mukasey? Plz, tell me she’s 3 for 3.

He does not have to look at all the thousands of cases in which the United States is a party. All he has to say is “Minion: search for assertion of state secrets in a case.”

He’ll get a list likely less than 100 captions long. Probably less than 50.

Why dontcha think some more about what I said about using “Significant”? The way I ask my questions is:
“Did any X happen?”
“Yes”
“How much X happened?”
“A lot.”
“How much is ‘a lot’?”
What makes you say ‘a lot’?”
“How much would be ‘not a lot’?”
or
“An insignificant amount.”
“How much would be significant to you?”
“Is there a line between ’significant’ and ‘insignificant’ or is there what is commonly called a grey area, i.e., where one person might say ’significant’ and another ‘insignificant’?”
“Why do you draw the line between ’significant’ and ‘insignificant’ where you do?”

And so on.

If the questioner qualifies the question with “significant”, prior to tying the answerer into making a definition of it, then none of those clarifications I’ve just exemplified can even be asked of the witness, and you leave the witness acres of wiggle room to roam around in, bullshitting all the time.

Objective, objective, objective. Always objective.

Someone tell Sessions Obama will alow gays in the military and obviate the Solomon amendment.

“Confusing and conflicting statements have come out in the press.”

Bond’s goal was to use his ten minutes to “set the record straight now.”

Claims there was no quid pro quo (my words) to compel Bond’s nomination.

Holder’s public answer to Senator Kyle re: the FISA/Telecom non-prosecution stance was said to be the basis for the private conversation between Holder and Bond resulting in the appearance of a quid pro quo for Bond’s “yes” vote – as reported by the press.

Bond just made the ridiculous statement that “circumstances can’t change” significantly enough to bring a suit now, given that the subject events and circumstances “happened in the past.” (the same could be said of all crimes)

The implication is that any future revelations or documents evidencing blackmail, fraud or treason should be ignored by Holder, simply because the events to which they pertain already occurred and were glossed over, buried, created a serious problem for one of our closest (Israeli) allies, or otherwise ruled to rise to a level worthy of prosecution.