See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Sampson Grilled by Senators on U.S. Attorney Firings: Says Gonzales Made False Statements
Source:
Editor & Publisher
URL Source: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/e ... .jsp?vnu_content_id=1003564888
Published: Mar 29, 2007
Author: E&P Staff
Post Date: 2007-03-29 14:19:26 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 288
Comments: 21
Sampson Grilled by Senators on U.S. Attorney Firings: Says Gonzales Made False Statements By E&P Staff Published: March 29, 2007 11:30 AM ET updated NEW YORK E&P will keep an eye all day on the testimony, and grilling, of former Justice Department official Kyle Sampson at a U.S. Senate hearing today. He offered his written testimony this morning (it was leaked last night) and then the questioning began by Sen. Patrick Leahy, Sen. Arlen Specter, and other members of the Judiciary Committee. Specter asked about Attorney General Gonzales' "candor" in saying earlier this month that he was not a part of any discussions on the firings. He asked about the November 27, 2006 meeting "where there were discussions" and Gonzales allegedly attended. Was Gonzales' statement about taking part in no discussions accurate? "I don't think it's accurate," Sampson said. "He recently clarified it. But he was present at the November 27 meeting." "So he was involved in discussions in contrast to his statement" this month? Specter asked. "Yes." Sampson replied. Sen. Charles Schumer then asked about Gonzales also claiming that he saw no documents on this matter. Sampson replied: "I don't think it's entirely accurate." Schumer: "There was repeated discussions?" Sampson : "Yes." Schumer: "As many as, say, five." Sampson: "Yes." Schumer then asked if Gonzales was truthful in saying Sampson's information on the firings was not shared within the department. Sampson: "I shared information with whoever asked....I was very open and collaborative in the process." Schumer: "So the Attorney General's statement is false?" Sampson: "I don't think it is accurate." Sampson was later asked if it was a mistake to let "ultimate political operative" Karl Rove to be so involved in the process because of the signal it sent to the public about political influence in the process. He agreed that it was. Sen. Dianne Feinstein focused on the firing of Carol Lam as U.S. attorney in her state of California. She asked about the move to fire her just after she sent notice on a probe of CIA official "Dusty" Foggo. Sampson said the move was really tied to Lam's lack of aggresiveness on immigration cases. She then asked whether he was aware that several of the other fired attorneys were looking at corruption claims against Republican office holders. Sampson denied awareness in some cases, and admitted others. Asked if he admitted there was a "perception problem" in the firing of U.S. attorneys who were engaged in sensitive political cases. Sampson said he "regretted" how it was handled. But then asked if he regretted the action or just how it was handled, he said, "I did not take adequate account of the perception problem that would result." Sampson claimed he kept no specific file on the process, just scattered lists, kept in a bottom drawer in his desk. This elicited some skepticism, considering the gravity of this termination move. The hearings recessed at 12:30, to resume at 1:45 p.m. The earlier AP dispatch follows. We will add updates at the top. ** Eight federal prosecutors were fired last year because they did not sufficiently support President Bush's priorities, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff maintains, but a powerful Senate chairman called that motivation improper. "It corrodes the public's trust in our system of justice. It's wrong," Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said as he gaveled open a hearing featuring the sworn testimony of Kyle Sampson, who quit the Justice Department over the furor. But Sampson maintained that it's legitimate to judge federal prosecutors in large part on their fidelity to administration policy. He denied Democratic charges that the firings were a purge by intimidation and a warning to the remaining prosecutors to fall into line. Nor, he said, were the prosecutors dismissed to interfere with corruption investigations. "To my knowledge, nothing of the sort occurred here," Sampson said in remarks prepared for delivery Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: aristeides (#0)
Breaking News on MSNBC is now claiming the hearing ended abruptly because of GOP objections. Hmmmm...
Now MSNBC is claiming the hearings have resumed; the objections were apparently resolved behind closed doors. I don't get C-SPAN3.
Can you link to C-SPAN 3 on line?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
With dial-up I'm limited. One of these years I'll upgrade if I can. Thanks. I might try audio, although I want to bet a few ponies and I don't do that online either.
I'm on listen mode. It seems Harriet Meirs is the buffer for Karl Rove.
There's a lot of talk about buffers in The Godfather.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Sampson is struggling with defending Griffin's appointment wrt Karl Rove...
I wish they'd ask Sampson to spell out the president's priorities.
heh-heh. I'm right behind you, Gonzo-Bonzo. Got yer back. Jist like I had Rummy's back. Oh, look, here comes a bus....
This is getting better: RoveJr aka Sampson is going to name those who were on the list but removed (not fired). One he names is Anna Mills Waggoner (ph) of NC. Plus three others he will name in writing in the future....since he's acting like he's unsure of the redacted names.
http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan3_wm.asp? Cat=TV&Code=CS3
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
RoveJr aka Sampson is going to name those who were on the list but removed (not fired). a. Rove Sr. doesn't seem to be too worried judging from his rap singing appearance at the Press Club to-do last night. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/03/29/mc-rove-raps-at-dc- dinn_n_44504.html "MC Rove Raps at DC Dinner" b. I was watching the MSNBC coverage of this Senate investigation and the blonde gal host ( I forget her name) asked this question of the reporter in the field: "What are the Democrats hoping to achieve from this investigation?" The reporter hemmed and hawed and said 2 maybe's that did not seem all that significent to me. So I'll ask you both - what are the Democrats goals in this investigation? - to force Alberto's resignation and then what - hope that GWB doesn't appoint someone as bad or worse? - to show corruption in the Justice Dept. under Gonzales so it sticks to the GOP in November, 2008? - voters have short mempories - to get the 8 prosecutors fired reinstated? - that won't happen - the President has the right to fire prosecutors at his whim - to get investigations of GOP'ers re-opened that they think Alberto shut down - like Jack Ambramoff links - I think Jack has been squeezed for whatever he thinks is okay to leak in his best interests What's the game plan here? I am mystified, frankly.
My opinion: obstruction of justice.
Alberto will resign way before that allegation gets off the ground.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and President Bush's former counsel approved the firings of eight federal prosecutors, Gonzales' one-time chief of staff told the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday. "I and others made staff recommendations but they were approved and signed off on by the principals," Kyle Sampson said, referring to Gonzales and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
"I and others made staff recommendations but they were approved and signed off on by the principals," Kyle Sampson said, referring to Gonzales and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. So Miers is gone, replaced by Fast Freddy Fielding. And Alberto will go replaced by ? See, that's my point - what do the Democrats hope to get out of this investigation that isn't already a foregone conclusion? ie. Alberto will resign and some other sleezy legal ? will fill his place. How is that a "success" for the Democrats?
A new AG has to be confirmed by a majority of the Senate.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1784404 6/ Nothing, not even Gonzales' resignation, will stop the investigation, Leahy said Wednesday.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Righhht. I'm sure that the Democrats and Pubbies would see eye to eye quickly in that regard...some mutally acceptable sleezebag candidate. Where's the problem?
There is none. And even if the Senate didn't approve an AG for the rest of Bush's term, would America be somehow harmed if the country was without an AG for a year and a half? I mean who would order the burning of women and children in Texas? Who's gonna send Marshals and snipers up an Idaho mountain to shoot women holding babies? How would the ATF jackboots know which doors to kick in at 3:00 am?
How does one "aggregate" a list and not keep records of it?
The hearings recessed at 12:30, to resume at 1:45 p.m.
#2. To: aristeides (#0)
#3. To: Fred Mertz (#2)
#4. To: aristeides (#3)
#5. To: aristeides (#3)
#6. To: Fred Mertz (#5)
#7. To: aristeides (#6)
#8. To: aristeides (#6)
#9. To: aristeides (#0)
#10. To: aristeides (#6)
#11. To: aristeides (#3)
Can you link to C-SPAN 3 on line?
#12. To: Fred Mertz, aristeides (#10)
This is getting better:
#13. To: scrapper2 (#12)
What's the game plan here? I am mystified, frankly.
#14. To: Fred Mertz (#13)
My opinion: obstruction of justice.
#15. To: scrapper2 (#12)
Testimony On AG Scandal: "Decision Makers…Were The Attorney General And The Counsel To The President"
#16. To: angle (#15)
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and President Bush's former counsel approved the firings of eight federal prosecutors, Gonzales' one-time chief of staff told the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday.
#17. To: scrapper2 (#16)
#18. To: scrapper2 (#14)
Alberto will resign way before that allegation gets off the ground.
#19. To: aristeides (#17)
A new AG has to be confirmed by a majority of the Senate.
#20. To: scrapper2 (#19)
I'm sure that the Democrats and Pubbies would see eye to eye quickly in that regard...some mutally acceptable sleezebag candidate. Where's the problem?
#21. To: angle (#18)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest