« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Sampson Testifies before The Senate
The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with Kyle Sampson is set to begin. I'll be providing running updates on the testimony to this post below the fold.
We'll also be providing clips of the testimony as it goes forward.
The hearing is being broadcast through the committee's website and also on C-Span3. Those watching at home are invited to weign in with a comment.
Update: Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) kicks it off, sounding as unhappy as he's sounded about this story over the past several weeks. "It does not sit well" with him, he says, when the Justice Department tries to cut the Senate out of the loop of confirming U.S. attorneys.
He also turned one of the administration's favorite lines about the firings on its head. U.S. attorneys "serve at the pleasure of the president," he said, but "justice does not serve at the pleasure of the president."
Update: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) gave a rundown of the "unbroken stream of missteps, mishaps and misstatements" by the Justice Department in his opening statement. It's such a pitiful display, he said, that at this point it's up to the DoJ to show that they behaved "well," he said, not for the committee "to demonstrate that the Department behaved poorly."
Update: There's a brief recess to allow other senators to join the hearing, since there are votes on the Senate floor.
Update: ...and we're back. And Kyle Sampson has just been sworn in. And is beginning his opening statement (pdf). Sampson added that he came to work in Washington, "because I believe in public service."
Update: And another recess for a vote.
Update: ...and we're back.
Update: Now Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is up for his opening statement. After outlining some "serious questions" that need answering, Specter said that the Justice Department seems to be in a state of "disrepair." He also said that he wants to see the attorney general "eyeball to eyeball" before he decides whether he thinks Gonzales should resign or not.
Update: On to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a former U.S. attorney. Sessions hit the "USAs serve at the pleasure of the president" talking point hard.
Update: And the questioning begins.
Update: Leahy begins by asking whether Sampson met with President Bush about the firings. Sampson said that he hadn't met with the president since the 2004 elections. He also says he isn't aware of any documents indicating a presidential decision on the firings. He said later that he doesn't know if the president reviewed the firing plan.
Now Leahy is asking about a November 15 email by Sampson, where he sent the firing plan over to the White House.
Sampson said that before November 15, he had discussed the firing plan with attorney general. It's not clear exactly what Sampson meant by that (how recently, in what detail) -- hopefully someone will follow up on that later.
Now we're on a December 7th email, between Sampson and deputy White House counsel Bill Kelley. Expandng on the discussion of Kevin Ryan in the email, Sampson said, "What I remember is that after Mr. Ryan was called and asked to resign that the White House Office of Political Affarirs had received some calls. Ryan had called in some political chits."
11: 22 Update: Now it's Specter questioning. And it's good. He's asking about the May 11, "the real problem we have now with Carol Lam" email. Sampson dodged at first, but then said that the "real problem" referred to her "office's prosecution of immigration cases." Nothing to do with Lam's search warrant of CIA Executive Director Dusty Foggo.
11:27 Update Sampson says that four U.S.A.s who were added to the purge list in mid-October. They were "close cases" Sampson says.
Specter asked him point blank about whether anyone was removed because of a specific case. Sampson says no.
11:29 Update: Sampson: "I don't think the Attorney General's statement about not being involved in any discussions about USA removals is accurate."
11:31 Update: Specter asks Sampson whether the Department ever planned to use the Patriot Act provision to avoid Senate confirmation for U.S. Attorneys. Sampson's answer:
That was a bad idea by staff that was not adopted by the principals. I did advocate that. It was never adopted by the attorney general or Ms. Miers.... I did recommend that at one point. I was the chief of staff and I had made recommendations of different options… and I did reccommend that. But it was never adopted by the attorney general. It was rejected by the attorney general.
Specter asks if there's any record of Gonzales' rejection of that idea, any email of it. Sampson says, "I didn't communicate with the attorney general by email."
11:37 Update: Schumer's up now for questioning. He wants to know about Gonzales' statements about the process.
Sampson says that there were repeated discussions about the firings, starting in January 2005 through the firings. "I spoke with him every day," Sampson said.
Asked about the November 27 meeting about the firings, Sampson said that Gonzales was present and that he did speak, but that "I don't remember the meeting clearly."
Now we're on to Gonzales' statement that Sampson did not share information about the firing process with senior DoJ officials who subsequently testified to Congress. " I was very open and collaborative in the process," Sampson said. When asked specifically whether Sampson had shared information with the two DoJ officials who testified falsely to Congress about the process, Will Moschella and Paul McNulty, Sampson said that he had.
Schumer: "So the Attorney General's statement is false. How can it not be?" It sounds like that Sampson was about to repeat his line that it was something that wasn't deemed important (the White House involvement in the firing plan), but Schumer cuts him off.
11:44 Update: Schumer's on to the next inaccurate statement, by DoJ spokesperson Tasia Scolinos on March 24 that the AG "did not participate" in the process to select the U.S. attorneyys to be fired. Sampson admits that wasn't an accurate statement.
11:50 Update: Now Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) is questioning. So far it's a number of softballs.
He asks, for instance, whether a replacement of a U.S. attorney would in and of itself interfere with the investigation of a criminal matter, making the point that it is the assistant U.S. attorneys who actually do the work on the cases. Sampson replied that it was "never my understanding that a particularl U.S. attorney changeover would have any effect on a particular case." (Right)
Cornyn closes with a speech about how there's no "evidence" of wrongdoing here and how the whole controversy is "unfortunate."
12:00 Update: During Sen. Herb Kohl's (D-WI) questioning, Sampson is asked about his stress on "loyalty" in rating U.S. attorneys. Sampson responds that what he meant was "loyalty to [the president's] policies and to the priorities that they had laid out for U.S. attorneys." He gave the example of Project Safe Neighborhood. He added that U.S. attorneys have the role as political appointees to promote the president's initiatives for law enforcement.
12:04 Update: Now it's on to Sampson's old boss, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). I don't expect this to be a promising line of questioning.
Here's something interesting: Sampson described 2005 as a "thinking phase" in the process of picking U.S. attorneys to fire.
Hatch tries to cast the evaluation reports done by the Justice Department as "narrow" evaluations that didn't capture the full breadth of the U.S. attorneys' performance.
12:10 Update: During Hatch's questioning, Sampson is asked about Carol Lam. Hatch notes that Lam was on Sampson's hit list in early 2005, before the Cunningham case even got going. Sampson eventually explains that Lam was on the list early on because...
"At the beginning, it was a failure to embrace the president's anti-gun, violence initiative, Project Safe Neighborhoods. The district in San Diego simply did not devote any resources to that initiative. That was a subject of consternation in former DAG Jim Comey’s office early on and throughout the process. Later, in 2005, 2006, concerns related to her office’s immigration enforcement..."
12:15 Update: Now it's Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). And she kicks off by introducing a 2/15/07 letter signed by the director of field operations of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency. The letter pronounced full confidence in the way that Lam handled immigration cases while she was U.S. attorney there. Feinstein wonders aloud how Lam could be criticized for her prosecution of immigration cases.
12:20 Update: Feinstein's still going full bore, asking about the May 10th notice by Carol Lam that her office was going to execute a search warrant on Dusty Foggo. Sampson claims only to know from news reports that Foggo was "an employee at the CIA" and that Brent Wilkes was "affiliated somehow with Mr. Foggo."
When Feinstein asks about the May 10th notice, Sampson replies, "I don't remember ever seeing such a notice."
12:25 Update: Now Sampson gives a fuller accounting of why he wrote that "the real problem" we have "right now" with Carol Lam. He again says it was because of immigration issues, explaining that there were a number of concerns about Lam's enforcement at that time, meetings about it, etc. We'll have video of that answer shortly.
12:27 Update: Under questioning from Feinstein, Sampson admits that after the FBI bureau chief in San Diego complained to the press about Lam's removal, Sampson called FBI headquarters and complained to a special assistant to the Director of the FBI about the remarks.
12:32 Update: Feinstein continues, asking Sampson whether he was aware of the various public corruption cases that the various U.S. attorneys were working on when he chose which U.S. attorneys to fire. He either answers that he wasn't (Nevada's Daniel Bogden's investigation of Gov. Jim Gibbons (R)) or that he was aware "through news accounts" -- as with Arizona's Paul Charlton's investigation of Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ). He claims that he was not aware at all that David Iglesias in New Mexico had not brought an indictment of a prominent state Democrat, and that he didn't know that Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) had called Iglesias about it before the election. He claims not to have known much about Seattle's John McKay's controversial choice not to pursue an investigation of the 2004 gubernatorial election -- he had no "specific recollection" of being aware of it.
12:37 Update: Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is up again.
Sampson says that the November 27 meeting during which Alberto Gonzales was present about the U.S. attorneys wasn't that long -- "maybe 20 minutes."
Sampson then goes on to explain how it was that DAG Paul McNulty managed to give false information to Congress. "In the preparation for Mr. McNulty, we really focussed on the issues of the day... Mr. McNulty was focussed on trying to provide the Congress with the information it wanted." Sampson said that they talked about the "performance reasons" for the firings, about "whether we tried to circumvent the Senate confirmation process," and about whether "anyone had been removed for an improper political reason," but that they didn't focus on the White House role.
12:45 Update: Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) is up.
Sampson acknowledges that prominent conservatives were upset about David Iglesias and Carol Lam, but that he was only generally aware of that. "The Department as a whole was aware of those complaints," he says.
Sampson again says that in mid-October, after presenting the initial firing list, they made an effort to look around at other U.S. attorneys and find some that they could "maybe add to the list." Four "relatively close cases" were identified.
12:51 Update: Under continued questioning by Cardin, Sampson is asked whether it ever occurred to him whether that there might be a "perception problem" with dismissing U.S. attorneys in the middle of big cases. Sampson says that "in my mind," he "didn't associate at all" the idea of asking the U.S. attorneys to resign with the idea of "improperly affecting" particular cases. He's saying that it didn't even occur to him.
12:55 Update: Under questioning by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), about whether he kept a file on this project. Sampson says "it would be too much to say that I kept a file... there really was no documentation of this."
Whitehouse asks Sampson whether he ever tried a case. Sampson that he had tried one. "It was a gun case." Sampson said he was appointed a special prosecutor in the southern District of Florida. Sampson said that he'd tried a "handful" of civil cases.
Whitehouse asks whether "we should be concerned about the experience level" of the people making the decisions. Sampson replies that the "decision makers in this case were the AG and the counsel of the White House."
Update: We're on a recess until 1:45 or so.
1:54 Update: Sampson goes on to clarify that he actually had met the president in 2005 at a meet and greet -- that was the last time, not in 2004, as Sampson said earlier.
1:55 Update: Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) is up. He's asking about his own state's USA, Paul Charlton. He's saying that the problem with Charlton were policy disputes -- over taping FBI interrogations, for instance -- and not anything else. Sampson admits that the term "underperformance" has led to some confusion here.
2:00 Update: Kyl continues to hit the question of whether Charlton was dismissed because of his investigation of Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ). Sampson said that he was the "aggregator of information" but that he wasn't aware of that as an issue.
2:03 Update: Kyl says that Gonzales personally called him December 7th to inform him that Charlton has been fired. Kyl expressed "shock and dismay" and then Gonzales sent DAG Paul McNulty to speak with him. Kyl says that McNulty explained to him the policy differences that were behind Charlton's firing, and Kyl responded by asking McNulty to reconsider the decision and allow Charlton to stay on.
2:08 Update: Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) is up now. He's again asking as to whether Sampson kept a file on the firings, Sampson says "it wasn't a very good file... there wasn't much of a file."
No we're on to the question of Karl Rove's role and the Feb. 23 letter to Congress.
Kennedy: Do you agree that Feb. 23 letter was inaccurate?
Sampson: "At the time I drafted that letter, I was not aware of Karl Rove having expressed an interest in Tim Griffin being appointed." He goes on to say that at that time, I wasn't even aware that Rove was in support of Tim Griffin being appointed.
I was not aware, don't remember then, don't remember now whether Rove was interested in the appointment.
Sampson says that the December 19th email where he said that Griffin's appointment was "important to Karl, Harriet, etc." was "based on an assumption," because Rove's employees Sarah Taylor and Scott Jennings had been involved and were interested in the appointment. It's a fine line he's walking. "The email was based on an assumption, the letter was based on the facts as I understood them at the time," Sampson says.
Kennedy also asks whether Sampson discussed U.S. attorneys at weekly meetings at the White House about judicial replacements. Sampson says that the discussions were episodic, usually addressed only after the meetings with discussions between him and Harriet Miers and Bill Kelley.
2:23 Update: Now Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is up.
2:25 Update: Sen. Leahy interrupts Grassley to say, "we've just recevied word that the Republicans have objected under the Senate rules to this meeting continuing. I think that's unfortunate, but I will follow the rules of the Senate... The Republicans are the ones who don't want to have the hearings, the Republicans have the right under the rules to do that.... we will stand in recess until the Senate recesses."
2:40 Update: And we're back!
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) is questioning Sampson about why he rated Patrick Fitzgerald as an undistinguished prosecutor.
Sampson answers that he's widely viewed in the Department as a very strong prosecutor.
Sampson says that it was early on in the process of rating the U.S. attorneys, "I knew that Fitzgerald was handling a very senstive case and really didn't want to rate him one way or the other.... I didn't rate him any way... I didn't rate him."
Durbin asks, Were you concerned that the White House wouldn't react well to a positive rating? Sampson says no.
Durbin asks if Fitzgerald was ever considered for removal?
Sampson says:
"On one occasion in 2006, in discussing the removal of U.S. attorneys... that I was speaking with Harriet Miers and Bill Kelley and I raised Pat Fitzgerald, and immediately after I did it, I regretted it. I thought, I knew it was the wrong thing to do, I knew it was inappropriate. And I remember at the time that Harriet Miers and Bill Kelley just looked at me.... I said, "Patrick Fitzgerald could be added to this list."... They just looked at me."
Durbin asks why he suggested that. And Sampson says he doesn't know why, that maybe it was just to "get a reaction out of them."
2:56 Update: Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) is back up.
Leahy's focussing on how David Iglesias got on the purge list. Sampson again says that in mid-October, he added four names to the list.
On how Iglesias did end up on the purge list:
"I don't remember hearing any complaints or anything about Mr. Iglesias' handling of corruption cases in New Mexico -- I do remember learning from, I believe, the attorney general, that he had received a complaint from Karl Rove about U.S. attorneys in 3 jurisdictions, including New Mexico. The substance of the complaint was that they were not pursuing voter fraud complaints aggressively enough."
3:09 Update: Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is up again.
Specter points out that Sampson suggested using the Patriot Act provision a number of times over a number of months. Sampson again says that it was a "bad idea," but says "I don't think the principals ever considered abusing the attorney general's appointment in that way."
Sampson adds: "I did not think the White House would consider doing that in 92 districts.... in my discussions at the staff level with folks at the White House, I believe it was a consideration then... at the staff level, we discussed it." But he says it wasn't adopted by the principals (meaning Harriet Miers).
Upon further questioning by Specter, he admits that he spoke with Gonzales about the idea. "I don't think he liked the idea very much," Sampson says. He's then asked whether Gonzales specifically rejected the idea, and says that it happened after Gonzales spoke with Sen. Pryor about the appointment of Tim Griffin in Arkansas. But it's unclear when that conversation was. Sampson says it could have been late December or early January. When Specter asks whether that was after Sampson wrote in a December 19, 2007 email that they should use the provision -- Sampson says it was. Sampson appears to have no recollection of Miers rejecting the idea.
3:30 Update: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) asks whether Harriet Miers ever suggested that Sampson wasn't the best person to be in charge of firing U.S. attorneys after making the suggestion that they fire Pat Fitzgerald. Sampson says no.
3:36 Update: Schumer asks about Sampsons "assumption" that Tim Griffin's appointment was "important to Karl." Sampson repeats his prior testimony about that.
Schumer asks Sampson whether he ever discussed removing Fitzgerald with anyone on Rove's staff. Sampson said that he didn't remember any such conversations. Schumer asked him again if he could say unequivocally that he never had such conversations, and Sampson again said that he couldn't remember any.
3:43 Update: Sen. Hatch is again up. He lauds Sampson, saying that he can't imagine him "being any more forthcoming."
Hatch asks Sampson again whether the Cunningham investigation had anything to do wtih Lam's removal. Sampson again says no.
On a line of questioning about why Iglesias was put on the list, Sampson says that four names were put on the list at about the same time (mid-October), but that three came off. Iglesias stayed on because removing him "wouldn't create any problems with the home state senators" -- meaning Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM).
And Hatch just suggested that Leahy's statement about Monica Goodling's choice to take the Fifth -- that he wonders what she has to hide -- would qualify as prosecutorial misconduct if he were a prosecutor.
4:00 Update Back to Sen. Feinstein. She wants to know who was responsible for putting names on the list.
Sampson answers that he was responsible for aggregating the list. Others (not clear specifically) added names -- "as information came in, I was responsible for adding people to the list."
Sampson then says that the attorney general signed off on who was on the list, but he can't remember specifically when that was -- he may have shown him the list, he may have done it in conversation. When Feinstein asks about the November 27 meeting, he answers that "we discussed where things stood... I reported that I'd coordinated with the White House." Feinstein asks whether the White House had signed off then, Sampson says he can't remember.
He adds that "The attorney general directed me that the senior leaders in the department should agree that these are the people who should be on the list." Feinstein expresses befuddlement about who exactly was in charge here.
About the November 27 meeting, Sampson says that he wanted to make sure that "everyone understood what we were talking about doing here... I wanted to make sure that the deputy attorney general and attorney general all were in agreement about the list going forward." When asked by Feinstein if there was any dissent at the meeting about the names, Sampson says there wasn't.
4:15 Update: Feinstein still going.
Sampson just said that after the November 27 meeting, McNulty pulled him aside and said that USA for San Francisco Kevin Ryan should be added to the list.
Feinstein asks about why Republican senators were told about the firings, but not Democratic home state senators (like Feinstein). Sampson says that, in hindsight, that wasn't a good idea.
When asked whether he knew who in the White House signed off on the plan, Sampson said he didn't know. He assumed Harriet Miers.
4:25 Update: Sen. Sessions is back. He starts out by harping on Carol Lam's gun prosecution numbers.
He rounds out by asking why Gonzales was mad about McNulty's February 6 testimony. Sampson replies that it was because the Department's position before then was not to discuss the reasons for the firings publicly.
4:31 Update: Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) is up again.
Who was responsible for Iglesias being added to the list? Sampson doesn't say specifically. He says that he was added along with three others, who were added in mid-October.
Who was responsible for Iglesias staying on the list? Sampson again recalls a conversation that Iglesias stayed on because Sen. Domenici wanted him gone.
When asked why Iglesias and the other three were put on the list in mid-October, Sampson says that they were "close cases," because there was no specific policy difference, but that they were four USAs where they felt they "could do better."
When asked whether there were any names that Sampson on the list that didn't get on it, Sampson says they he was merely "the aggregator of information." He personally didn't put any names on the list.
Sampson flat out says that Lam's investigation wasn't even a consideration when discussing whether Lam should be fired.
4:45 Update: After a brief recess, Sen. Whitehouse starts again.
He again probes Sampson's advocacy of the Patriot Act provision. Again, Sampson can't say when Gonzales rejected the idea. He says that's a question for Gonzales.
4:50 Update: Whitehouse again asks about the "problem" we have "right now" was with Carol Lam on May 11. Sampson again says it was about immigration. There was a "robust debate" going on in the Congress about comrehensive immigration reform at the time. He said that there was some talk about having a meeting at DoJ about border enforcement, that he doesn't remember if the meeting ever happened, but there was a lot of discussion about "getting some deliverables" on immigration enforcement.
"Ms. Lam had her own independent views about what kind of cases she wanted her office to work on," Lam said. The "background" to the Lam complaints he said, was "gun cases."
4:55 Update: Schumer again. Sampson again denies that anyone was ready to replace the USAs who were forced out.
Now Schumer is asking about who was on the purge list but were then taken off.
Sampson says the USA for Middle District of North Carolina Anna Mills Wagner (ph). Monica Goodling suggested that she be removed (not Western District as in one of the emails), because she had a successful gang prosecution program.
Sampson can't remember who the other three others added in mid-October were.
When asked whether it ever occurred to Sampson to correct the record after he realized that McNulty had given false tesitmony to Congress, Sampson says that the first time he was aware of that was March 9, and he subsequently resigned.
5:00 Update: Sen. Feinsteni is back.
Did you or everyone at the Justice Department ever call Carol Lam and tell her that you were concerned about her immigration record?
Sampson says "I did not and I don't remember anyone else in my office doing that."
On the topic of the May 11 "real problem" right now with Carol Lam email, Feinstein again asks Sampson whether he was aware of Lam's notice of search warrants for Dusty Foggo on May 10. Sampson again says he wasn't aware of it.
Feinstein again, much to her frustration, tries in vain to get Sampson to explain who was responsible for who ended up on the list. All Sampson can say is "I was the keeper of the list."
5:10 Update: Specter again pursues a line of questioning about Sampson's touting the Patriot Act provision, and Sampson again says it was a bad idea of his that was never adopted by "the principles" involved. He adds that "he's not aware that the attorney general ever seriously considered it."
5:15 Update: Sen. Hatch, up again, again lauds his former staffer for being honest and admitting his mistakes. And he again goes on to say that he sees nothing wrong with having removed Lam.
I have to say, Hatch gets the blue ribbon for having the most leading, self-serving line of questioning of the day.
Hatch asks about what Gonzales knew about the process. "I kept him generally aware," Sampson says.
5:25 Update: Schumer again, asking about Iglesias.
Schumer asks when he was added to the list. Sampson only says that it was in mid-October. "I remember speaking... at some point prior to this (mid-October), Bill Mercer had expressed negative views about Mr. Iglesias." This was in 2005.
Sampson adds that "at some point, David Margolis had indicated to me some negative views about Mr. Iglesias, that he wasn’t a strong manager, that he delegated a lot to his first assistant." When? Sampson can't say, only that it wasn't that "recent."
"Sometime in late October, those in the senior management in the department, the DAG, his CoS, myself, Monica Goodling, went back to look at the list." I don't remember it being one discussion, but a series of discussions. Iglesias was added then. Sampson still can't name who was responsible.
Sampson remembers a conversation with the Deputy Attorney General (McNulty) that Domenici wouldn't object to Iglesias being on the list.
When asked whether Sampson can remember a single example of someone in particular making a specific complaint about a U.S. attorney, Sampson can only offer the example of McNulty's suggestion of putting Kevin Ryan on the list.
Schumer pushes him on whether he would fire Iglesias if he had it to do all over again. Sampson says, "I wish the Department hadn't gone down this road." He also says that he would not have fired Iglesias.
Update: And after a conclusion by Sen. Specter, we're done.
Comments (235)
The Commissar wrote on March 29, 2007 10:19 AM:I am live-blogging the hearings too.
http://acepilots.com/mt/2007/03/29/live-blogging-sampson-defends-the-philistines/
Dan wrote on March 29, 2007 10:22 AM:Schumer (my Senator) is a smart guy... But he needs to be permanently barred from trying to make jokes in his speeches.
Ouch.
greenchilecheeseburger wrote on March 29, 2007 10:26 AM:The word needs to go out that the proper way to say "The US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President" is to insert the words "American People" so that it reads "The US Attorneys serve the American People at the pleasure of the President" People need to stop letting the repeat the former version and constantly correct them with the latter.
greenchilecheeseburger wrote on March 29, 2007 10:29 AM:...stop letting the media repeat...
Brian M wrote on March 29, 2007 10:33 AM:Of course MSNBC and CNN are dutifully covering Bush's Iraq blustering, a good excuse to dump out of the hearing and probably a White House media strategy to get the hearing off the screen for awhile.
Of course there will also be the Anna Nicole updates, and the talk about what the hearings "mean" from bobblehead daytime anchors and previously unknown consultants.
Ray Rl wrote on March 29, 2007 10:35 AM:"The US Attorneys serve the American People at the pleasure of the President"
Cat wrote on March 29, 2007 10:38 AM:Well said greenchilecheeseburger. I would only add that the president also serves at the pleasure of the people.
Is the hearing online on Cspan or Cspan 2?
blogenfreude wrote on March 29, 2007 10:40 AM:CSPAN 3
Brian M. wrote on March 29, 2007 10:41 AM:Also, just to ask this question...
Why does CNN show live photos of the Capitol and White House alongside Sampson? As if we're waiting to watch the House of Usher fall.
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 10:42 AM:Kyle, you didn't let the AG and the DOJ down. You let the American people down. Hard.
ww wrote on March 29, 2007 10:44 AM:http://judiciary.senate.gov/webcast/live.ram
Jim vdH wrote on March 29, 2007 10:44 AM:Did he just say "in good faith" in describing his preparations for DOJ testimony to Congress?
Or did he perhaps say "'in good faith'"? I couldn't quite tell.
It might even have been "'"'in good faith.'"'"
kentuck wrote on March 29, 2007 10:45 AM:It is important to make the point that the "Attorneys do not serve at the pleasure of the President" - they serve at the pleasure of the law and the Constitution and the people, just as the President serves...
ww wrote on March 29, 2007 10:45 AM:voting - short recess
Rusty wrote on March 29, 2007 10:46 AM:Snifflling little weasel... why did they have to suggest that it "could be immigration related issues" for the three on the border? I call bulls*$t.
I hope these Senators have been reading TPM's coverage, b/c I'd have some questions to ask Sampson right now. Especially about the quotes around "good faith" efforts in his emails.
SkippyFlipjack wrote on March 29, 2007 10:46 AM:Leahy couldn't have used the crapper at some point during the senate voting break?
realFedUp wrote on March 29, 2007 10:50 AM:"Fire all the liars, bring the troops home now!"
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 10:55 AM:In other news (one room over), Senate supplemental passes 51-47.
We picked up one additional vote. Not sure who.
xoxo wrote on March 29, 2007 10:57 AM:Sampson is an embarrassment to the Department, not to mention a flagrant liar. There is no way on earth to reconcile a) the February letter to Schumer (which Sampson drafted) saying, in essence, "Rove had nothing to do with Tom Griffin's appointment" and b) the email trail (esp Dec. 19) that proves exactly how aware Sampson was personally of "Karl"'s involvement.
Sampson is about to be taken apart, and deservedly.
(code word, aptly, is "shame")
Odbasta wrote on March 29, 2007 10:57 AM:So they're cutting in and out of a call-in show on cspan3 during these recesses. I'm outright amazed that the conservative callers on this show just repeat "They served at the pleasure of the president" over and over and over again, and don't understand "what all the fuss is about". They really have become totally complacent over the last 6 years, and just can't fathom why people are actually asking questions.
It's in line with the delusional White House, I guess.
Neal wrote on March 29, 2007 10:58 AM:Makes sense to me. Apparently, Kyle Sampson was just using the phrase "performance-based" in the same context that Tony Soprano uses "performer."
Dennis wrote on March 29, 2007 10:58 AM:Seems to me the mainstream media are still doing their best to minimize the damage to Bush, rather than just report the news. To hell with their "opinions" and their biased explainations.
Some of these commenters are no better than soap opera stars.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
PMS wrote on March 29, 2007 11:01 AM:Welcome to the "Department of Just Us"
...(to borrow from Richard Pryor, in a very different context).
taoskier wrote on March 29, 2007 11:03 AM:greenchilecheeseburger,
Rusty wrote on March 29, 2007 11:06 AM:The best GCCB (green chile cheeseburger) her in Santa Fe (new home to Joe & Valerie Wilson) is the 'Bobcat Bite' followed by 'Dave's Not Here'......Yummm.
Knock off that burger talk... you're making me aweful hungry. Alren's so tough. He's positioning for a grandious fit of waffling in the near future. Can't wait to see how he will cave in the future when he is needed.
Security code: expert
as in expert at getting the sound bit and then falling on his ass when the time comes to stand up.
dancer79 wrote on March 29, 2007 11:13 AM:"I haven't spoken to the President since I started working at the White House." --approximately what Sampson said in response to Leahy's question.
I thought he worked at DoJ, not the WH!!!
Thom wrote on March 29, 2007 11:20 AM:On January 19 Gonzales testified to his committee and said: "I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it."
Now Sampson says: "Thus the distinction between ‘political’ and ‘performance related’ reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial."
If it's artificial, why did Gonzales so vigorously deny it?
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 11:21 AM:taoskier,
I've had both. The best in the atate is at the Outpost bar in Carrizozo. And the fries are the best I've had anywhere on the planet.
P.S. I'm old enough to remember when Dave's not Here was Tomasita's.
legion wrote on March 29, 2007 11:22 AM:Ummm... everybody's really big on the "at the pleasure of the President" business... but if Bush had no input or contact with DoJ about these firings at all, how can Gonzales, let alone one of his flunkies, have the authority to can the USAs on their own? Wouldn't that be definitive evidence of improper termination by itself?
Punchy wrote on March 29, 2007 11:22 AM:"He also says he isn't aware of any documents indicating a presidential decision on the firings."
Say again? If they work at the behest of the President, how is he completely out of the loop when they get canned? If so, aren't they really "serving at the pleasure of" the assistant of the deputy assistant to the secretary's assistant, or whomever thus decides to can them?
eric wrote on March 29, 2007 11:23 AM:This guy has been thoroughly coached. He has rehearsed all of this, and it shows.
Rusty wrote on March 29, 2007 11:23 AM:"...the real problem with Lam..."
Immigration issues - yet, they had to contrive that because another emails talks about using immigration issues for the three USAs on the border. Spector is not going to get them on it, but I sure hope Schumer does.
eric wrote on March 29, 2007 11:24 AM:"Okay..." Even Spector doesn't believe him.
Agathena wrote on March 29, 2007 11:25 AM:Sampson: [ironic name for such a wimp]
"I don't know"
"I don't remember"
A person cannot be doing a good job with that much ignorance and memory loss. Therefore,
TheraP wrote on March 29, 2007 11:25 AM:how could such an incompetent person be working as counsel to an Attorney General, let alone become a US Attorney in Arkansas?
dancer79
and that does not preclude that there could have been a meeting with bush (and others) about these issues -
these people are such weasels that if you don't ask the exact question or phrase your question to include every eventuality, they will weasel out of it.
So - do you know of any meetings bush held with regard to...
and - were you present at any such meetings? etc.
Matt wrote on March 29, 2007 11:26 AM:Re: immigration cases
Didn't Lam have HALF her staff on immigration cases?
Also, her numbers went up in 2006, right?
And, finally, the DOJ NEVER contacted her about changing her immigration handling, right? Just gripes and defenses by the DOJ against Issa?
oppositionradio wrote on March 29, 2007 11:27 AM:wow - sampson says gonzales lied.
TheraP wrote on March 29, 2007 11:28 AM:Agathena-
obviously total loyalty to bush includes memory erasures when necessary and blind obedience as routine.
We can thus expect a great deal of early Alzheimer's ....
Ann wrote on March 29, 2007 11:28 AM:How do I open this .ram file???
TheraP wrote on March 29, 2007 11:30 AM:Amazing to see the memory working so well when it comes to why they were concerned about Lam
But not so well when it comes to the bushco side of things
Daniel Bauman wrote on March 29, 2007 11:31 AM:Spector left a big loophole in his question "Are you prepared to swear under oath that none of the dismissals had anything to do with a problem *you* had with cases they were or weren't prosecuting" (I'm misquoting most of the question)
The question should be whether to his knowledge any of the dismissals had anything to do with a problem that ANY administration official had with cases they were or weren't prosecuting.
HCC wrote on March 29, 2007 11:31 AM:judiciary webcast keeps cutting out on me.
HCC wrote on March 29, 2007 11:34 AM:wash post has live feed here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2005/04/12/VI2005041201139.html
you need real player to run .ram
try wash post, its better right now
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 11:34 AM:Ann, A .ram file is a real player file. (although I wouldn't recommend you install real player unless you have to).
C-span also has Window Media feeds. If you're on a windows machine you should be able to watch the WM feed using Windows Media Player.
Rusty wrote on March 29, 2007 11:35 AM:Go Schumer! That's twice Sampson has said "I believe that statement is false."
security code: fire
as in what Sampson is feeling right now
Swashbuckler wrote on March 29, 2007 11:37 AM:So, Gonzo says that he would never remove a US attorney for political reasons and Sampson says that political considerations arte integral to evaluating their performance.
Taking their statements at face value, did these two talk to one another? Did they ever come up with any shared values, other than protecting Bush?
After all, Sampson was only Gonzo's chief of staff...
Gonzo must go!
Dave wrote on March 29, 2007 11:40 AM:It seems to me the plan is to protect the White House and blame Gonzales. Look for Sampson to get a nice job that is somehow connected through Rove.
Willem van Oranje wrote on March 29, 2007 11:42 AM:Sampson says, "I didn't communicate with the attorney general by email."
How did they communicate? By IM?
Swashbuckler wrote on March 29, 2007 11:43 AM:> How did they communicate? By IM?
Phone calls.
I've been told by an attorney for the company where I work to communicate certain kinds of things by phone, not by email.
Daniel wrote on March 29, 2007 11:44 AM:Supposedly, the AG doesn't use email at all.
TheraP wrote on March 29, 2007 11:47 AM:remember, the AG does not consider blackberries email
it's all in the semantics
foggylady wrote on March 29, 2007 11:47 AM:Republican strategy for running out the clock at the hearings...Repub panel members interrupt, talk over the chairman to protest something, refuse to shut up, all the while the clock is ticking. They did at Boxer's hearing, at Waxman's GSA hearing, and just now at Sampson's hearing while Schumer was questioning.
mbbsdphil wrote on March 29, 2007 11:47 AM:Kyle Sampson had never been a practicing prosecutor. But Sen. Cornyn feels he’s qualified to opine on whether a mid-term change of a US Attorney is likely to have an impact on his or her office’s most important and controversial cases, especially those where that office’s prosecution might be at odds with the political interests of Washington.
Like asking an Admiral’s aide in the Pentagon basement whether replacing an operational commanding during an island assault is likely to affect its outcome. After all, the commander isn’t really the guy piloting the landing craft or leading the troops up the hill.
Based on this Chicago Law School's swiss cheese memory and Clintonesque parsing of what constitutes an "inappropriate political reason" for firing a US Attorney, I would say Mr. Sampson is exceptionally unqualified to answer that question.
legion wrote on March 29, 2007 11:48 AM:Sampson dodged at first, but then said that the "real problem" referred to her "office's prosecution of immigration cases."
Um, that's interesting. The Director of the FBI testified just the other day that he knew of _NO_ immigration cases that Lam's office wasn't working appropriately. Exactly what case information does the DoJ have that the freaking FBI doesn't? Can somebody ask Samson that please?
From the badlands of New Mexico wrote on March 29, 2007 11:48 AM:"It seems to me the plan is to protect the White House and blame Gonzales. Look for Sampson to get a nice job that is somehow connected through Rove."
Posted by: Dave
RobbyLove wrote on March 29, 2007 11:48 AM:Dave shoots and scores from well beyond the 3-point arc! It will be interesting to find out where Mr Sampson continues with his career.
Sampson seems to be answering fairly directly. It seems fairly obvious that Gonzo lied.
Sampson is also doing his best to fall on his sword.
From the badlands of New Mexico wrote on March 29, 2007 11:49 AM:Kohl: "What did the other 85 do to KEEP their jobs?"
TheraP wrote on March 29, 2007 11:49 AM:same thing happens on tv. they extend their comments. they obfuscate. interrupt.
lie. cheat. steal.
LizDexic wrote on March 29, 2007 11:52 AM:How do I open this .ram file???
Open RealPlayer, then under File, choose "Open Location"
bcb wrote on March 29, 2007 11:53 AM:and paste in the address: http://judiciary.senate.gov/webcast/live.ram
A few questions based on Sampson's opening statement:
What was the basis for finding that each of the fired USAs was "unsuccessful from a political perspective"? Who in either the WH or DOJ made that evaluation?
How had they alienated the leadership at DOJ or "other governmental constituencies"? Who made that evaluation and on what basis?
When did you develop the list for potential termination of USAs? Who at the WH requested the list? Was there any input from the WH in regard to potential targets?
You said when consulted officials suggested someone be taken off the list, they "generally" were. Who were these consulted officials, were they ever overruled and by whom?
Just some initial thoughts.
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 11:55 AM:Mr. Sampson is not testifying; he is conducting a news conference. Sampson has succeeded in deflating the entire process. That’s to be expected from someone considered capable of replacing Rove.
But I am gobsmacked at the softball questions lobbed at someone who, at least bureaucratically, is playing major league hardball. Unless someone in addition to Schumer starts asking hard questions, this will be a farce. It will damage all the Senate’s investigatory efforts.
RobbyLove wrote on March 29, 2007 11:57 AM:Ok. Now wait a minute.
First he says that these USAs were near the end of their 4 year terms and that's why they were considering them.
NOW he says they were selected by asking other people who they felt were underperforming.
Someone needs to pin him down on that.
Odbasta wrote on March 29, 2007 12:00 PM:Seems like Hatch and Sampson have a rehearsed script.
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 12:00 PM:Sen. Hatch slips in a nice one, describing Sampson as the person in charge, the one responsible for determining which US Attorneys to hire or fire. He was a chief of staff with no prosecutorial experience.
He had spent a few years as a junior associate in Salt Lake, time on the hill, and then gofering in the WH and DOJ. It's not clear he had even appeared in traffic court, much less a federal district or appellate court.
No competent organization would have delegated such important, such fudamental personnel and organizational changes to someone with so little experience.
OldCoastie wrote on March 29, 2007 12:01 PM:only able to read along, but it sure looks like Sampson's testimony is just a giant kabuki display, with the goal being making Gonzalez's toss under the bus even more dramatic.
why?
Robin wrote on March 29, 2007 12:01 PM:Oh, that Orrin. He is so helpful. Such an intrepid questioner!
I am so sick of republican hacks using hearings to reinforce their own politically expedient purposes.
Is Orrin unable to pronounce FOGGO?
sec word: polish (as in orrin polishing rove's butt)
Jason wrote on March 29, 2007 12:03 PM:oooooooooooooooh Feinstein with the smackdown! way to document Carol Lam's great performance,r ight after Sampson says she didn't perform well.
mbbsdphil wrote on March 29, 2007 12:04 PM:Mr. Sampson is slyly accurate. He contends, as the "person in charge of this process", that he made no decision to hire or fire a US Attorney for political reasons. He also opines that there is no distinction between politics and performance. Mr. Sampson would be correct if all these decisions were made by Rove and others in the WH. Given Gonzales' absentee landlord style of management that would seem likely.
Mr. Gonzales is not a strong figure, but he is intelligent. I see his "inattention" to these fundamental matters because he knew that his input was irrelevant.
Robin wrote on March 29, 2007 12:06 PM:taosskier said:
The best GCCB (green chile cheeseburger) her in Santa Fe (new home to Joe & Valerie Wilson) is the 'Bobcat Bite' followed by 'Dave's Not Here'......Yummm.
***************
I used to go to Bobcat Bite in the early 1970s. (well, mom drove me there...).
It is so not fair for people in NM to talk about new mexican food when there are former new mexicans NOT in NM who have to really work to forget what she is missing........not fair!
Hey, an itsaburger with extra green chili is a quick fix on a short lunch hour!
Lynne wrote on March 29, 2007 12:09 PM:I don't remember being aware - how's that for legalspeak?
glass wrote on March 29, 2007 12:10 PM:Question for Sampson: Did DOJ make any effort to determine that the replacement of any particular U.S. Attorney would NOT have a negative impact on investigations in his or her district?
If no, isn't that inexcusably bad management?
From the badlands of New Mexico wrote on March 29, 2007 12:14 PM:Is Sessions setting the premise for the Goodling 5th Amendment pleading?
Gypsy wrote on March 29, 2007 12:16 PM:I think maybe Sessions get's the fact that this is really bad for the Justice system by the questions and statements he just made. Thank God there are a few Republican's who take some things seriously and don't just try to help the Administration rehabilitate itself with the kind of leading questions that Orin Hatch asked.
Thom wrote on March 29, 2007 12:16 PM:RobbyLove - great point (quoted it)
And how about Sampson not knowing anything about the investigations into Republicans, from his answeres to Feinstein?
How could he guage their performance if he didn't know what cases they were working on?
mbbsdphil wrote on March 29, 2007 12:17 PM:Sen. Session is very sly. He just conflated the US Attorney's role as being both the President's lawyer and the country's lawyer. This elides the hardest part of being a US Attorney - being a political appointee while administering justice with minimal political influence.
bobh wrote on March 29, 2007 12:17 PM:Hatch is begging for an FBI agent to get up there and call him an idiot.
El Borba wrote on March 29, 2007 12:17 PM:Did anyone ask Kyle yet what documents ever existed to let the USAs know that they were serving "four year terms"? Has there ever been an administration that handled USAs terms this way? If not, there is another question that should be asked.
gtash wrote on March 29, 2007 12:17 PM:I am digesting the comments here and at Firedoglake. I see a lot of you are smart observers, yet the opinion varies widely on how Sampson is doing insofar as being persuasive to the audience over your head--the guys who will see the newsreel at 6 pm--or catch FOX/Limbaugh clips. It seems to me Sampson makes a plausible impression and will continue to do so until some of these Senators take his testimony apart and sweat the details. Is that being saved for another session? Is it wise to let the guy have time to re-group and adjust for a second round of testimony after Coach Rove has examined the game-footage of the initial round of questions?
eric wrote on March 29, 2007 12:18 PM:So, he was aware of complaints about immigration prosecution issues in California, (even though there really weren't any), but he is only generally aware of news reports of the huge corruption scandal involving Cunningham and Foggo?
It's not even close to believable.
biggerbox wrote on March 29, 2007 12:18 PM:If, as Sampson would have us believe, 'performance' on the President's policy initiatives was key, where is the evidence of them developing and using metrics to measure that? Where are the reports showing these USA's were falling behind on those metrics? Where is the trail of corrective actions taken to improve the USA's attention to these specific metrics?
Even if we granted Sampson the point that that was a valid basis for decision, there's no evidence that it actually was used.
But you all knew that. Carry on.
Security Code: please. As in "OH, p-lease...!"
mbbsdphil wrote on March 29, 2007 12:20 PM:Sampson is an excellent choice for these hearings for the same reason he was an excellent choice as chief of staff to a placeholder Attorney General, whose decisions are really made in the WH. He's a wolverine dressed as a chipmunk. "After you, no, after you."
Swashbuckler wrote on March 29, 2007 12:22 PM:> How could he guage their performance
> if he didn't know what cases they were
> working on?
Their performance on cases wasn't what ol' Kyle was concerned about.
eric wrote on March 29, 2007 12:22 PM:Cardin is a smart lawyer, it shows. He knows how to ask questions very well.
mbbsdphil wrote on March 29, 2007 12:23 PM:Sen. Sessions repeats the canard that replacing a US Attorney has no affect on prosecuting that office's most important cases. They're just political appointees who are changed all the time. Right.
Just as the temporary occupant of the White House has no impact on the priorities or decisions of the federal government. Please, will a responsible Senator expose this lie.
eric wrote on March 29, 2007 12:24 PM:*Do you see a perception problem here?
Heh.
whidbeygrl wrote on March 29, 2007 12:24 PM:Sampson keeps insisting the USAs were fired for "performance" reasons.
I think he is right.....
each one was "performing" an investigation the Admin. did not like, or had not "performed" an investigation into Democratic affairs the Admin. wanted them to.
and/or a combination of investigations.
You can always tell when folks lie to the Comm. at hearings..their voice raises, they start talking faster spewing out a lot of unrelated details, and they keep repeating the same pat phrases, and try to trot away from the issue at hand.
Dan wrote on March 29, 2007 12:27 PM:I.. find it very difficult to believe that Sampson hasn't talked to anyone from the Administration about his testimony.
On the other hand, I doubt that there is any trail which could disprove the statement.
Robin wrote on March 29, 2007 12:29 PM:He doesn't keep a file?
It's time we just cut to the chase. Let's interview the admin assistants. See if they know anything about the possibility that perhaps, maybe, shot in the dark that basic office procedures even take place at the DOJ.
No decision-makers use e-mails....
No one has files....
They work on projects for a couple of years... and it all happens via conversations in the hallway....since no basic office work goes on.
Boy Genius wrote on March 29, 2007 12:30 PM:Perjury Alert!
eric wrote on March 29, 2007 12:30 PM:Slick question by Whitehouse. Asks if KS coordinated his testimony with anyone besides his lawyers and family. Got a sweaty "no" answer. Something will turn up to prove this a lie long before Karl Rove has to throw him also under the bus.
Is this guy even a lawyer? Doesn't know about the adverse inference of taking the 5th? Again, more lies.
jdw wrote on March 29, 2007 12:31 PM:BTW - when people listen to Sessions asking questions, they need to keep in mind his view of the Voting Rights Act and voter fraud. Wiki has a quick and dirty, with links out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions
Sessions is as hard core attack dog on "voter fraud" as a wingnut tool as anyone in the Administration. Which is saying something.
mbbsdphil wrote on March 29, 2007 12:33 PM:Mr. Sampson has the Rove line down pat - "It's my fault, I take responsibility." He's just limiting that to the execution, not The Plan. The assumption being, of course, that there be no consequences for using words like "responsible" or "accountable". Whatsa matter - you don't think those are "clear skies" or "healthy forests"?
Sampson is also parsing whether he kept a "file". He kept "no file", it was a "drop file", it was a running "project", not a "specific file". Puhleeze.
El Borba wrote on March 29, 2007 12:35 PM:A quick follow up on my last question. My brother (an normal attorney) told me that the four-year provision of Article II of the Constitution itself, but that does not account for why Sampson says that some of the USAs terms would have been up in September 2005. The constitutional implication would be that their term expired when the president's term expired regardless of the date of their appointment.
mbbsdphil wrote on March 29, 2007 12:35 PM:Sen. Whitehouse is finally asking tough questions. Mr. Sampson's memory seems to be failing him.
Sholom wrote on March 29, 2007 12:36 PM:*Follow up questions needed*
Arggh -- I was at the hearing (just got back to work) and I wanted to stand up and shout out the obvious follow up questions that needed to be asked.
Here's the most obvious one:
======
When Feinstein asks about the May 10th notice, Sampson replies, "I don't remember ever seeing such a notice."
======
Arggh -- Feinstein never asked "did you hear about such a notice? did you hear that Lam wanted to execute a search warrant on Foggo? was anyone at DOJ talking about it?"
And, finally, "how could you, as Chief of Staff and Counselor to the AG, not have heard about it?"
More folow up questions that were not asked:
- Why, in all the emails that DOJ provided, was there no mention of Lam's prosecutions?
- Did anyone care if it would or would not effect her investigations? Shouldn't you have at least made sure that it would not effect the investigations?
How can we get these questions more publicity? How can we get them to the Judiciary Committee?
mbbsdphil wrote on March 29, 2007 12:36 PM:Sen. Whitehouse is finally asking tough questions. Mr. Sampson's memory seems to be failing him. He remembers having tried "one" criminal case in his career, in 2004, in Florida. And he was in charge of the future of 93 US Attorneys?
jdw wrote on March 29, 2007 12:37 PM:On the use of the Patriot Act:
"That was a bad idea by staff that was not adopted by the principles. I did advocate that. It was never adopted by the attorney general or Ms. Miers.... I did recommend that at one point. I was the chief of staff and I had made recommendations of different options… and I did reccommend that. But it was never adopted by the attorney general. It was rejected by the attorney general."
Uh... isn't Griffin the Interim replacing Cummins? Has Griffin's nomination ever been forwarded to the Senate?
DrBB wrote on March 29, 2007 12:39 PM:"11:31 Update: Specter asks Sampson whether the Department ever planned to use the Patriot Act provision to avoid Senate confirmation for U.S. Attorneys. Sampson's answer:"
I was listening at that point, and as Specter finished I thought I heard a comment to the effect that it was pretty odd that the provision seemed to have been actually employed in 8 firings if as Sampson says it "was not adopted by the principles." Anyone else catch that?
Sholom wrote on March 29, 2007 12:41 PM:JDW -- nice observation. In fact, Sen Leahy made that observation, too, in between other questioners, although he seemed to apply it to _all_ the new USA's.
J. Thomason wrote on March 29, 2007 12:42 PM:Not a Bert's fan eh Taoskier?
rld wrote on March 29, 2007 12:44 PM:Our President has an anti-gun initiative?
VietVet67 wrote on March 29, 2007 12:47 PM:Is Cornyn Kyle (Radar O'Reilly) Sampson's attorney?
Jose Padilla wrote on March 29, 2007 12:49 PM:USAs may serve at the pleasure of the president but they take an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution.
Zorro wrote on March 29, 2007 12:49 PM:...so basically, Gonzo's top aide knows nothing, knew nothing and remembers nothing about his job.
AA wrote on March 29, 2007 12:54 PM:"Question for Sampson: Did DOJ make any effort to determine that the replacement of any particular U.S. Attorney would NOT have a negative impact on investigations in his or her district?
If no, isn't that inexcusably bad management?
Posted by: glass"
Dead-on. Rove made a point about how they kept some Dem USAO's because of the cases they were working on - only one I can think of is Mary Jo White in SDNY because she was investigating a NJ Dem (Torricelli). There is nothing in the emails about considering the disruption of important cases when firing their own USA's.
jdw wrote on March 29, 2007 12:57 PM:Sessions, Cornyn and Hatch... you just want to shout at the screen when these guys are tossing up softballs. Specter is trying to play both ends, knowing his nuts are a bit in the vice on the Patriot Act amendment. It makes him at least tolerable. The other three are just off in hackery.
Of course it's too be expected. These things have always had hacks loyal to the party. Watching the Watergate hearings as a munchkin with my father taught me the lesson. But I also vividly recall Howard Baker's "What did the President know and when did he know it?", and my father, a life long moderate Republican saying outload:
"Exactly!"
He was tired of the hackery from his own party supporting a President that he was starting to strongly believe went much too far.
Hopefully at some point in the next 18 months,we have some Repubs who are willing to follow Senator Baker's lead.
mbbsdphil wrote on March 29, 2007 12:57 PM:The four-year term for US Attorneys is in a statute, not the Constitution. Briefly, it states that the USA serves for a four-year term, and continues in office until his or her successor is appointed and confirmed. Standard languagae to avoid a gap in leadership.
Somewhat inconsistently, it also allows the President, in effect, to replace them at any time.
Before this administration, interim changes were rare. Which is why it is a lie for Sessions, Hatch, et al, to compare this administration's changing nearly ten percent of USA's midterm with the customary change of USA's in between administrations. But then, they know that.
That Miers and Rove were considering replacing all USA's at the start of their second term, or even a lot of them, indicates that their concern was not about the administration of justice, or even giving "new blood" a chance. They were concerned that they weren't getting enough political mileage out of some of them.
The Republican talking point that little changes when a USA changes is also a lie. Leadership counts. Ask any platoon, office department head, CEO, Senate Committee staffer, hospital administrator, college president, mayor or governor. It affects everything.
It is not a lie in one respect. If all important decisions are really made in the White House, then it doesn't matter "to them" who is nominally running a department. Their control changes only when someone they've appointed actually starts to act like a leader. Which is why Mr. Gonzales gave them no worries.
anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 12:58 PM:There are only two possible interpretations of "performance-based," even accepting the White House meme:
(1) you weren't getting the job done in the classical sense - number of prosecutions and type of prosecutions and effectiveness of prosecutions not up to snuff;
(2) you refused to follow the policies and priorities laid out by the president.
The first is clearly false and why the White House has backed off it.
But the second is simply reduced to insubordination.
So, why was Gonzales and (?) willing to give recommendations for US Attorneys who were insubordinate - is that who you send off with a good recommendation to fellow Republicans, someone who wont' follow the boss's orders?
I think not.
Leahy needs to ask Sampson if the DOJ considered the USAs insubordinate and make him say either they were doing a lousy job or were insubordinate.
Dave wrote on March 29, 2007 1:02 PM:Somebody needs to question him in a way that gets him repeating over and over again that these firings were not linked to corruption cases.
That's the only way this story is going to stay alive after Gonzo resigns this week.
jak1 wrote on March 29, 2007 1:05 PM:>>Cornyn closes with a speech about how there's no "evidence" of wrongdoing here and how the whole controversy is "unfortunate."<<
How can he close with a speech, that reaches those conclusions, there is NO evidence of wrongdoing, before the hearings are concluded???
Seems like he came to that conclusion BEFORE any/all evidence have been explored.
I suppose that is what a loyal Bushie does!
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 1:06 PM:Cornyn closes with a speech about how there's no "evidence" of wrongdoing here and how the whole controversy is "unfortunate."
So, before he's heard all of the evidence, he proclaims there is no evidence. Nice.
"At the beginning, it was a failure to embrace the president's anti-gun, violence initiative, Project Safe Neighborhoods. The district in San Diego simply did not devote any resources to that initiative. That was a subject of consternation in former DAG Jim Comey’s office early on and throughout the process. Later, in 2005, 2006, concerns related to her office’s immigration enforcement..."
So, Lam after being criticized for not taking violent crime seriously enough switches priorities and prosecutes more serious violent crimes and because she switches to doing what the administration asked her to do then she wasn't doing enough about immigration, presumably because she shifted resouces in the first place at the request of the leadership.
Uh-huh.
3G_p wrote on March 29, 2007 1:08 PM:RE: anonymous
"(2) you refused to follow the policies and priorities laid out by the president.
The first is clearly false and why the White House has backed off it.
But the second is simply reduced to insubordination."
They just want a "yes" man as a USA - serving justice not required.
The DCCC should run with that...
Jack wrote on March 29, 2007 1:10 PM:Mr. Sampson, could you please explain to the committee what the term "gum this to death" means?
---
OAG000000127
From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:27 PM
To: Goodling, Monica
Subject: FW: Another Griffin article
fyi
- - - - - Original Message- - - - -
From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:27 PM To: 'Oprison, Christopher G.' -Subject: RE: Another Griffin article
My thoughts:
1. 1 think we should gum this to death: ask the Senators to give Tim a chance, meet with him, give him some time in office to see how he performs, etc. If they ultimately say, "no never" (and the longer we can forestall that, the better), then we can tell them we'll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be' done
in "good faith," of course.
2. Officially, Tim is the U.S. Attorney, and will identify himself. as such on pleadings and other official documents. I think it's fine for us to refer to him as an "interim U.S. Attorney" in talking points, with the understanding that by "interim U.S Attorney" we mean AG-appointed (as opposed to Presidentially-appointed and Senate confirmed) U.S. Attorney.
3. overall, I think we should take the temperature- way down -- our guy is in there so-the status quo-is good for us- Ask for them to consider. him; note that he, is qualified and• doing a good job whenever asked; pledge to desire a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney; and otherwise hunker down.
4. The only thing really at risk here is a repeal of the AG's appointment authority. We intend to have DOJ leg affairs people on notice to work hard to preserve this (House members won't care about this; all we really need is for one Senator to object to language being added to legislative vehicles that are moving through). There is some risk that we'll lose the authority, but if we don't ever exercise it then what's the point of having it? (I'm not 100 percent. sure that Tim was the guy on which to test drive this authority, but know that getting him appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc.)
- - - - - Original Message- - - - -
From: Oprison; Christopher G. [mailto:Christopher_G._Oprison@who.eop.gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:16 PM
To: Sampson, Kyle
Subject. RE: Another Griffin article
Thanks. I raised that issue with Harriet earlier. Seems to me that (1) Pryor and Lincoln are, taking steps to back DOJ/WH into a corner on Tim Griffin and commit to not commit on him as a nominee; and (2) "interim" may be a source of confusion or, worse, a term that Pryor's and Lincoln's office can springboard from to press for their own nominee rather than rallying behind Tim. What are your. thoughts? If this is a Section 546 AG appointment for unlimited duration, Tim can call himself "US Attorney" rather than "interim" or "acting" and our talkers should avoid referring to him-as "interim." What are your thoughts?
- - - - - Original Message- - - - -
From: Sampson, Kyle (mailto:Kyle:Sampson@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 5:36 PM
To: Oprison, Christopher G.
Subject: FW: Another Griffin article
fyi
Sholom wrote on March 29, 2007 1:12 PM:"Sampson says that the November 27 meeting during which Alberto Gonzales was present about the U.S. attorneys wasn't that long -- "maybe 20 minutes.""
Curious. Didn't he say, in response to a Schumer question at the beginning of the hearing, about whether the AG was even at that meeting, "I think so."
Now, later on, he not only knows, but now knows how much time he was there?
Gypsy wrote on March 29, 2007 1:16 PM:When I say that Sessions get's it, I should also say that I am not sure why he was so angry about whether as a past attorney he really understands the damage to the American Legal system when there is a perception of bias or whether he is just mad cause it all came to light but he was mad.
From Feinstein's letter she just read. The only conclusion I can come to is they were upset because Carol Lamb was also prosecuting the Illegal immigration cases more than they would want. This is not just about corruption but they fully support Johnny Sutton apparently when he prosecuted border patrol agents and yet they apparently didn't support someone with a 100% rating from Law Enforcement. This is about cheap labor for the corps also as they make uber money on war and outsourcing along with illegal immigration which is wanted by the corps.
By the stuff that we either know or can assume about the way this is being handled, they probably not only got rid of people who refused to go after Democrats gratuatously or went after Republican office holders and supporters for reason. They also are saying the stuff about immigration but the evidence seems to suggest that Carol Lamm's office was using at least 50%of scarce resources vigorously in favor of law enforcement at the border as well as going after Republican corruption at high levels and proving it. What about that is incompetent?
Their agenda on so many fronts is becoming more obvious. Thank God elections have consequences cause the Sunlight is needed. Let's let the chips fall where they may.
parrot wrote on March 29, 2007 1:18 PM:I have to agree that the Senators are softballing Citizen Sampson. I wonder what the second session will bring when the senatorial staff and bloggers have helped distill down the questions that should be asked...I mean, will they ask any more substantive
Steve wrote on March 29, 2007 1:19 PM:Sampson responded to a question about Gonzo being at the meeting by saying I'm not sure if stayed for the whole meeting, and then a few moments later stated that he followed Gonzo out after the meeting, but was then called back.
Two things: 1) he was trying to provide cover for Gonzo by implying he might not have stayed for the whole thing, but blew it. 2) He has real specific recall about the specifics of moving around at the end of the meeting, but is challenged with the specifics of the content.
Jack wrote on March 29, 2007 1:20 PM:Re: Comey/Guns/Immigration excuse, Carol Lam nailed that straight-on in her February testimony before the House Judiciary committee. I think the testimony was within 10 minutes or so following the 2:30 minute mark.
The whole testimony is four+ hours, linked here:
http://judiciary.house.gov/Oversight.aspx?ID=278
Proponent of JS wrote on March 29, 2007 1:21 PM:You liberals are all a bunch of wussies.
My favorite blog has the best analysis of this whole debacle. Click on my link for a more thorough analysis.
****************************
Democrats are making a big deal out of the firing of few prosecutors who are appointed by the President and "serve at the pleasure of the President" or lack thereof as the case may be. Critics say that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been trying to politicize the Justice Department, but blogger and Charleston (West Virginia) Daily Mail columnist Don Surber thinks the department should be politicized, and so should the rest of the government. "Of course these firings were political," he writes. "Their hirings were political. It is all political. That is why we vote. We elected President Bush to be the chief executive of this government. He should be able to fire anyone."
I thought President Bush could fire anyone, but he was just extremely reluctant to do so even when someone screws up. But it turns out that there are a bunch of people in the government he can't fire. "Unfortunately, we have Civil Service, which protects most federal employees from being fired," Surber explains. "This makes it difficult to have the government serve the people."
Click on my link for more.
Securty code SHOE
Buck wrote on March 29, 2007 1:23 PM:troll watch. Let it go
Code: Crime
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 1:23 PM:Why aren't any of the Senators asking Sampson to say exactly who participated in the decision on who to fire and what exactly was the criteria for each prosecutor and how they verified that the criteria were legitimate.
After all, if a group of people were asked to give a thumbs up or down and weren't asked why, it's quite possible that their motivations were improper and how can Sampson know otherwise?
And it was just one person, the AG, and he didn't know the details about why each USA was on the list, then how can he say that the list itself was not the result of improper motivatios?
Finally, what standard and evidence did they use to determine that McKay wasn't pursuing voter fraud cases? Did they just accept the word of local party hacks? Did they review the allegations and conclude based on the evidence that this or that allegation should have been pursued and if so why did they come to a conclusion vastly different from McKay, his subordinates, and the FBI?
They have to dig into this and make Sampson provide detailed answers about why the prosecutors were fired - looking for a smoking gun or for Sampson to admit something is a waste of time.
They've got to nail down his story.
TR wrote on March 29, 2007 1:23 PM:"Sampson says that there were repeated discussions about the firings, starting in January 2005 through the firings. "I spoke with him every day," Sampson said."
That would have been the start of their 4 year term. Why didn't they ask for resignations of the ones they didn't like at that point, just like with cabinet members? That would have raised no questions.
anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 1:30 PM:"That would have been the start of their 4 year term. Why didn't they ask for resignations of the ones they didn't like at that point, just like with cabinet members? That would have raised no questions."
For that matter, why didn't they fire them at the first sign of "insubordination," since it is clear they never intended to give any of them a chance to correct that alleged "insubordination."
If they aren't getting the job done, why not fire them immediately as it became apparent instead of waiting to fire them all at once.
You don't have an incompetent or insubordinate employee and just hold the thought until you get a group you can fire for the same reason, you take immediate action, either counseling them or firing them.
The whole way the process was handled stinks to high heaven and is inconsistent with a story that they were fired for "performance-based" reasons.
They would have been fired right after their evaluations, if that were true.
And speaking of evaluations, why wasn't this concept of "following orders" not part of their evaluations.
If it is a legitimate criteria for keeping your job, then it is a legitimate criteria for a performance evaluation, yet none of the performance evaluations mention these things.
When are the Senators going to ask tough questions like above?
When are they going to ask why these issues weren't included in the USAs' evaluations?
I'm waaaaaiting . . .
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 1:31 PM:Sampson replies that the "decision makers in this case were the AG and the counsel of the White House."
I see, the same people who were "not involved."
Riiight.
Larry_H wrote on March 29, 2007 1:33 PM:Is it just me or is this guy burying Gonzales. Gonzales defense is that he staffed the decision out. This guy is the staff. What is Gonzales going to say? "I trusted the guy. I saw his drawer full of post-it notes." If Sampson was there to defend Gonzales at all, he would at least try to make the process look like something more than an office betting pool. "Consensus-based process" my hat. You'd have to believe that the eight fired USA's didn't have one friend who would have told Sampson to take their name off the list. No. Something had to drive the decision and it sure wasn't this guy. Gonzales is being left out in the cold.
Node of Evil wrote on March 29, 2007 1:34 PM:Sampson replies that the "decision makers in this case were the AG and the counsel of the White House."
Those are exactly the people whose experience level I question.
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 1:36 PM:Why has no one specifically asked "What methods were used to communicate with the White House?"
Node of Evil wrote on March 29, 2007 1:37 PM:I'm willing to bet good money that, if you were to question Karl Rove, he'd implicate the President before he implicated himself. After all, Presidents and Attorney Generals only serve for a limited time.
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 1:45 PM:The questions are simple, but they aren't being asked:
Mr. Sampson, are you saying the USAs were insubordinate.
Mr. Sampson, for each USA fired, exactly what criteria was used and what evidence was reviewed that demonstrated that the criteria for under-performance was met?
Mr. Sampson, if the firing process "wasn't scientific or well-documented" and you didn't make the decision, then how do you know the firings were not for improper reasons?
Mr. Sampson, which USAs specifically alienated the leadership of the Department in Washington and how did they do so?
Gypsy wrote on March 29, 2007 1:47 PM:Proponent of JS
When you say that the attorney's office should be political, I assume that you will feel that way when the next President becomes a Democrat and it is the Republican's who are prosecuted on trumpted up charges. I don't think it is a good thing either way.
Sick of The Lying "Loyal Bushies" wrote on March 29, 2007 1:47 PM:It is a little like the same Republican's who in 1993 and 1994 were saying that Clinton should have no funding for Somalia and should have a time table but are saying the opposite now. It is suppose to be America first and Parties second. You really need to get your priorities straight. The 2004 election was made moot by the 2006 elections, as your party likes to say, Elections have consequences. The American people want some accountability and competence in their elected officials of EITHER party.
Sampson said he spoke with Gonzales every day. But they only discussed these attorneys around 5 times. Riiiiiiight.
Books Alive wrote on March 29, 2007 1:50 PM:Thanks to Ann's question and answers from ww and LizDixit, I encountered the same problem with some committee webcasts that didn't allow Win Media Player. I thank you all for the instructions.
I love my new Media Player 11, however, as that came up as an update while trying to get set to watch.
Also, aren't the new senators, Whitehouse and Cardin great attorneys? Whitehouse had four years as the US Atty in Rhode Island. On the Repub side, Jeff Sessions is also being unforgiving of interference, as he often refers to his 12 years as a US Atty/
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 1:51 PM:Mr. Sampson, why weren't the "performance reasons" you have alluded to (alienating the DOJ leadership in Washington and failing to follow through on White House priorities) evaluated in the USAs' performance appraisals?
Mr. Sampson, if the USAs weren't informed through the performance appraisal process about what they were doing wrong, how were they supposed to change their behavior?
Mr. Sampson, why won't the White House release the performance evaluations and the list of all 93 USAs with their ratings - since you clearly have stated that you've removed all of those USAs that got bad performance ratings, the remaining USAs must have very good to outstanding ratings and they should be proud to have those placed on public display? Or is it that you've only removed "underperforming" USAs that also had partisan justifications just to hide those partisan justifications?
Books Alive wrote on March 29, 2007 1:54 PM:BTW, I emailed Sen Cornyn, objecting to the way he dishonestly omitted to say that the Gonzalo/Rove substitute/replacement US Attorneys were NEVER submitted for confirmation by the Senate.
His contact form requires TWO validations...he says his site is the most spammed of any (in the senate, or in the govt, I now forget just which).
El Borba wrote on March 29, 2007 2:03 PM:Surprise, surprise that Kyl is using his time to defind himself more than clear up any other issues (even related to AZ).
Gypsy wrote on March 29, 2007 2:11 PM:If Sampson never talked to Rove about Griffin then where did Griffin's name come from originally? Who recommended him?
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 2:11 PM:Kyl says that Gonzales personally called him December 7th to inform him that Charlton has been fired. Kyl expressed "shock and dismay" and then Gonzales sent DAG Paul McNulty to speak with him. Kyl says that McNulty explained to him the policy differences that were behind Charlton's firing, and Kyl responded by asking McNulty to reconsider the decision and allow Charlton to stay on.
-==================-
So, basically Kyl is testifying for McNulty and Gonzales, shamelessly introducing hearsay evidence into the record.
The guy is a corrupt toad.
Gypsy wrote on March 29, 2007 2:17 PM:What rule says that they can just stop in the middle of testimony? And yes Kyl was doing mostly Cover his own ass.
So Long Gonzales wrote on March 29, 2007 2:18 PM:WTF just happened? Republicans objected to the hearing? Huh? As an aside, I think Gonzales is gonna gone. It seems even most of the Republicans have now turned against him.
troqua wrote on March 29, 2007 2:19 PM:WTF just happened!!!!
Security code: glass, as in transparency - NOT
crack wrote on March 29, 2007 2:20 PM:Isn't there a division of powers problem with someone named whitehouse working in the senate?
scott wrote on March 29, 2007 2:26 PM:Corrrection: 2:08 Dem senator wasn't Kennedy but Cardin from Maryland.
Why did the Repubs stop the hearing? Was Sampson getting off the script?
Interesting stuff!
Steve wrote on March 29, 2007 2:27 PM:RSVP - what just happened?
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 2:29 PM:How often is this objection raised, that a committee can't meet while the Senate is in session? Looks like the Republicans are desperate to end these hearings and will use any tactic available.
Gypsy wrote on March 29, 2007 2:32 PM:Chris Jansing and Mike Vaquero seem to be perplexed. They said some nonsense about not know where this came from and it having not been arranged earlier I think and that it was sudden. They also mentioned lots of role call votes called this morning that seemed to delay the beginning of these hearings. Had they gotten too close to something? Surely they know that this won't end here.
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 2:37 PM:Whichever Republican it was that raised this objection is only forestalling the inevitable. Does anyone know when the hearing will resume?
Michael Stevens wrote on March 29, 2007 2:38 PM:If the Republicans continue to delay and impede this hearing, I gather the committee could carry the hearing over to tomorrow (or another suitable date).
I don't think this delay and impede strategy is a very bright one for the Republicans. Their behavior just reinforces the implication that this is a cover up.
Salvor Hardin wrote on March 29, 2007 2:38 PM:Watching Asst. WH Spokersperson Dana Perino squirm behind podium regarding Sampson's repudiation of AG's claims.
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 2:40 PM:"It's a fine line he's walking."
Republican Timeout.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . .
Gypsy wrote on March 29, 2007 2:40 PM:They'reeeeee baaaack.
John wrote on March 29, 2007 2:42 PM:Just had a tangential thought ...
"At the beginning, it was a failure to embrace the president's anti-gun, violence initiative, Project Safe Neighborhoods. The district in San Diego simply did not devote any resources to that initiative."
I wonder what the National Rifle Association thinks about the "president's anti-gun" initiative?
Eli wrote on March 29, 2007 2:42 PM:"Under Senate rules, the committee cannot hold a hearing that lasts longer than two hours, except by unanimous consent. Republicans requested that Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., enforce the rule and the hearing was halted."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17852146/
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 2:44 PM:Their behavior just reinforces the implication that this is a cover up.
-==================-
Pretty much like Goodling pleading the Fifth.
Mark wrote on March 29, 2007 2:44 PM:The first question after this reconvenes better be:
Have you been coached or instructed in any manner about what your continuing testimony should be?
This stinks to high heaven. On the other hand, I believe we have hit a nerve. I kind of like it.
troqua wrote on March 29, 2007 2:44 PM:From the Senate Rules:
Notwithstanding any other provision of the rules, when the Senate is in session, no committee of the Senate or any subcommittee thereof may meet, without special leave, after the conclusion of the first two hours after the meeting of the Senate commenced and in no case after two o'clock postmeridian unless consent therefor has been obtained from the majority leader and the minority leader (or in the event of the absence of either of such leaders, from his designee).
http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule26.php
anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 2:53 PM:Sampson says that it was early on in the process of rating the U.S. attorneys, "I knew that Fitzgerald was handling a very senstive case and really didn't want to rate him one way or the other.... I didn't rate him any way... I didn't rate him."
-==============-
So, who did rate Fitz?
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 2:55 PM:Durbin asks why he suggested that. And Sampson says he doesn't know why, that maybe it was just to "get a reaction out of them."
-============-
So, the answer is yes, but he wanted to say no, and he can't say no because Miers or Kelley might contradict him if they testify.
Sweeeeet.
Buck wrote on March 29, 2007 2:56 PM:On the surface it seems that they've been doing a lame job....but there are these questions that seem to be setting up for something later.
...Leahy reminding him he's under oath confirms it.
Larry_H wrote on March 29, 2007 3:03 PM:Let's see if someone smelled a perjury/obstruction trap and tried to slow things down. Sampson is testifying that he was driving the school bus drunk. The Dems are getting close to asking "Who was the bartender?" If Sampson says he was drinking alone then he is in real jepardy. If the Reps have cried uncle during the recess then the Dems will let Sampson play out the "I Claudius" gambit. If the Dems continue the hunt then I'm wrong.
anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 3:18 PM:"I don't remember hearing any complaints or anything about Mr. Iglesias' handling of corruption cases in New Mexico -- I do remember learning from, I believe, the attorney general, that he had received a complaint from Karl Rove about U.S. attorneys in 3 jurisdictions, including New Mexico. The substance of the complaint was that they were not pursuing voter fraud complaints aggressively enough."
-==============-
Wow. So there was no verification at all as to whether the complaints had any substance. If somebody complained that you weren't pursuing voter fraud complaints aggressively enough, you got fired, regardless whether the claims were true or not?
Riiiiight.
Businesses and administrations fire people all the time without first investigating complaints that they haven't been doing their job.
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 3:22 PM:Kennedy: Do you agree that Feb. 23 letter was inaccurate?
Sampson: "At the time I drafted that letter, I was not aware of Karl Rove having expressed an interest in Tim Griffin being appointed." He goes on to say that at that time, I wasn't even aware that Rove was in support of Tim Griffin being appointed.
I was not aware, don't remember then, don't remember now whether Rove was interested in the appointment.
Sampson says that the December 19th email where he said that Griffin's appointment was "important to Karl, Harriet, etc." was "based on an assumption," because Rove's employees Sarah Taylor and Scott Jennings had been involved and were interested in the appointment. It's a fine line he's walking. "The email was based on an assumption, the letter was based on the facts as I understood them at the time," Sampson says.
=====================
WTF? Does this smell like obvious perjury?
anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 3:27 PM:"Does this smell like obvious perjury?"
-=============-
It smells like an obvious attempt to explain away perjury already committed.
Which is probably why he wanted, needed, to testify, while Goodling didn't: he had to have a chance to spin his prior lies into something a jury could reasonably view as something other than perjury.
LOL.
jdw wrote on March 29, 2007 3:31 PM:Specter is going hard after the Patriot Act amendment again. Seems like he knows it's his ass hanging out in the wind for letting it get in. To draw attention away from the jackass who allowed it to get into law, he wants to keep the attention on the jackasses who wanted it inserted in and have abused it.
Can one of the Senators freaking ask whether Griffin is in fact an AG appoinment who hasn't been brought up for nomination yet?
From the badlands of New Mexico wrote on March 29, 2007 3:33 PM:Did Kyle Sampson work for Orrin Hatch at the same time the people hacking Democrat email accounts worked for Hatch?
jdw wrote on March 29, 2007 3:40 PM:Great line from firedoglake.com:
-----------------
Sampson says that he doesn't remember any conversations with Rove or any of the people who worked for or with him – he doesn't think it happened — whether Rove had anything to do with the suggestion that Fitzgerald be fired. Schumer points out that that's not exactly a definite answer. (CHS notes: on my HDTV, it sure looks like Sampson's bald spot is getting quite pink as this line of questioning is going forward.)
-----------------
It's hours of entertainment having browsers open to both TPM and FDL for both the fine coverage along with the astute and biting comments of the readers/posters.
Security code: "amount", as in the amount of jail time Kyle will avoid due to a pardon
Mark wrote on March 29, 2007 3:40 PM:I am getting sick of this. Why don't they fucking nail Sampson to the wall on Iglesias and Lam?
If you only heard hear say from Karl Rove, why did you fire Iglesias without looking in to the matter further? Or are there other reasons? Was the FBI's conclusion not enough?
Lam, why did you never bring up these complaints with her if they were so important to your priorities?
If they put the screws down later, then I will admit I am mistaken but right now they are letting Sampson off of the mat.
bcb wrote on March 29, 2007 3:52 PM:More questions for Mr. Sampson:
If you were responsible for putting USAs on the list, what was the basis for putting each one of those fired USAs on the list?
What was the standard for putting people on the termination list?
Would you put people on the list based on comments from other DOJ officials, WH employees, etc. without doing further investigation as to the basis of these complaints?
jdw wrote on March 29, 2007 3:54 PM:Hatch is back to toady it up.
Has one of the Democrats brought up that Sampson was Hatch's Counsel from 199-2001?
Buck wrote on March 29, 2007 3:58 PM:...just couldn't help laughing about the firearms question referring to prosecutions in Texas.
ahem wrote on March 29, 2007 4:03 PM:The Wild, Wild, West doesn't have an overabundance of firearms?
If Sampson was 'aggregating information' on USAs, why wasn't it in the document dump? There's nothing to support the idea of Sampson collecting information and crunching it, and if you're firing federal officials, you sure as hell want to document it.
Why did Domenici know that there was a list?
peter richards wrote on March 29, 2007 4:04 PM:If I had a nickel for every time this Rove-Cheney genetic hybrid said the word ‘aggregator,’ I’d qualify for one of those Bushy tax cuts for the super-wealthy. Gees- I knew internet egos like this in the 90’s, but this guy is even more an empty suit than they were. Senators- please help us.
Buck wrote on March 29, 2007 4:04 PM:Anybody been counting how many times he said "I don't remember".
...and "to the best of my recollection".
It would be a piece of work to string a video together with them.
Security Code: Same
jdw wrote on March 29, 2007 4:06 PM:TPM Gang: The Di-Fi second go around with Sampson *must* be put up in full. This seems to be what they were setting up for.
VietVet67 wrote on March 29, 2007 4:11 PM:Running out of popcorn here.
jdw wrote on March 29, 2007 4:17 PM:Whitehouse is going to hit him like Di-Fi did.
BRH wrote on March 29, 2007 4:20 PM:Sampson just told Whitehouse he couldn't comment on the "hypothetical" that Whitehouse raised re: the impropriety of removing a USA for political bias. But when Whitehouse asked him if removing a USA for pursuing or failing to pursue a political case was improper, Sampson agreed it was. He didn't say THAT was a hypothetical.
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 4:25 PM:"And Hatch just suggested that Leahy's statement about Monica Goodling's choice to take the Fifth -- that he wonders what she has to hide -- would qualify as prosecutorial misconduct if he were a prosecutor."
Typical Republican tactic. Create a strawman argument "if he was a . . ." and then assert illegality.
Of course Leahy is not a prosecutor, and this is not a judicial proceeding. Leahy can opine however he pleases.
If we're playing that game, Hatch should "recuse" himself from these hearings given his prior relationship with Sampson.
eric wrote on March 29, 2007 4:29 PM:In summary, the theme of his testimony is that he was going after Lam because people were complaining about her immigration prosecutions. He didn't really look into it and it never occurred to him that maybe it had something to do with Cunningham. He even sort of admits that it was wrong. But he won't admit to anything but the immigration stuff.
It's not credible, but I do see his strategy.
Security Code:
SUE COHEN wrote on March 29, 2007 4:32 PM:round
The Judiciary Committee should nail Sampson's butt and keep asking the HARD questions and demand truthful answers. And if not, perjury indictments should follow without delay!
Remember the secondary motive was replacing these attorneys with more LBW's ( loyal Bush-weasels) in preparation for the PRIMARY motive.
Which is to steal yet another election in 2008 by having federal atty's in place who would overlook all voting rights violations. This time Rove's evil shenanigans must be stopped and exposed. Rove must be held accountable--
All roads lead to ROVE & BUSH!
jdw wrote on March 29, 2007 4:38 PM:Oh goody... Di-Fi is coming up with another 10 minutes.
jdw wrote on March 29, 2007 4:41 PM:I think Schumer is setting up something down the road with that last line of questions re: questions to career attorneys. 99.9999999% likely that they already have someone in the bag to testify on being asked those questions.
Di-Fi is starting up, and roasting him again.
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 4:46 PM:I believe Feinstein just asked Josh's question, correct?
aiko wrote on March 29, 2007 4:48 PM:Correct !!
A. Scott wrote on March 29, 2007 4:50 PM:Diane is not having this little pip-squeak. Yeah, she asked Josh's question and the non answer just pissed her off , and now Sampson is trying to cat-box all this back to the AG.
aiko wrote on March 29, 2007 4:50 PM:Kyle was the keeper of the list...but not the decider....
peter richards wrote on March 29, 2007 4:51 PM:Follow the Fogo. It's all about the Fogo search warrant.
Among other stench.
jdw wrote on March 29, 2007 4:52 PM:Di-Fi was really pissed off. Nice to see.
Can the TPM guys put up Cardin's series out questions? Sounds like he went off.
A.Scott wrote on March 29, 2007 4:53 PM:I've only been watching this a short time, was the Fienstein/ Sampson bit the hottest moment yet?
God, Spector is a useless old prick isn't he?
Rob B wrote on March 29, 2007 4:57 PM:"I collected and compiled information from a number of sources. But there was no documentation of the information."
That's not information - it's GOSSIP!
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 4:59 PM:Iglesias stayed on because removing him "wouldn't create any problems with the home state senators" -- meaning Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM).
-================-
So, let's get this straight: if the prosecutor was incompetent or not following the president's policies, he could still keep his or her job as a USA if the home state senators objected?
Question: would that apply if the home state senators were Democrats or only if they were Republicans?
whidbeygrl wrote on March 29, 2007 5:00 PM:Tried to get on the Hearing Comm site to listen in, the server is full..
seems this hearing is a lot more popular than
"normal"
ain't that just grand?
favorite quote so far:
Sampson ( frequently)
" I don't remembe