Comments (89)

Bryan Lewellen wrote on May 9, 2007 10:40 AM:

As Jon Lovitz used to say, "Yeah, that's the ticket."

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 10:47 AM:

Sampson set up "Cascade Consulting LLC" on 3/22/07 from his home residence in Alexandria, VA.

What exactly is Sampson consulting on? Who is paying him to "consult?"

theswan wrote on May 9, 2007 10:50 AM:

The blame game. Sounds like a second grader to me.

bordersmuggler wrote on May 9, 2007 10:51 AM:

What was the justification for Harriet Miers suggesting replacing all 93 U.S. Attorneys in 2004? Massive firings in the middle of a presidential administration was unprecedented. Was that merely cover for the firing of the eight or nine (Graves) or ten (Heffelfinger) that did occur?

PJ White wrote on May 9, 2007 10:53 AM:

Yeah, sure, Gonzo, I believe you now. You lying sack of shit.

sc: nail. As in, let's nail the bastard's hide to the barn door.

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 11:01 AM:

How did Sampson and Gonzales come to this "agreement". In writing, secret order, carrier pigeon, or verbal? I doubt that there was, but lets see if Gonzo 'can recall'. I doubt the secret order prescribed such a process. Most likely that document is written vaguely.

Gonzo blames Sampson for not getting "a consensus recommendation of the Department’s senior leadership". But Gonzo himself doesn't even verify or validate independently the list given to him for termination by Sampson. Termination is a very big deal. ANY boss would want to, at a minimum, cover their own ass and ensure that they aren't going to get into hot water for the firing. Especially when the reccomendation is handed up to him.

He doesn't even do that! He's implying that he can't walk across the hall, pick up the phone or drop an email with ANY of the Department’s senior leadership and verify that they agreed, at least in part, with the list.

How can he blame Sampson for going off the reservation with the list, if he doesn't even do the bare basics to ensure the list is legit.

Argh, this just pisses me off...

He really is the clown of this administration.

Maybe they should lock Gonzo and Sampson in the pillory down in Williamsburg VA and see which one rats the other out first.

Crust wrote on May 9, 2007 11:02 AM:

Re the Cascade Consulting, LLC and Sampson: The only relevant links Google turns up are comments at TPM. Does anyone have any details beyond the registration? Or can even cite where people can go to verify the registration?

12string wrote on May 9, 2007 11:03 AM:

"...as in other areas of the Department’s work, I expected a process to be established that would lead to recommendations based on the collective judgment and opinions of those with the most knowledge within the Department."

So, this is the way we do everything in Justice? OMG!

Crust wrote on May 9, 2007 11:04 AM:

PS the most detailed comment re Cascade Consulting is from Mrs. Panstreppon with the registration details. See:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/mrs_panstreppon/2007/mar/28/why_was_monica_goodling_prosecuting_low_level_criminal_cases_in_the_fall_of_2004#comment-240319

Firstthingwedo wrote on May 9, 2007 11:06 AM:

It's actually much easier to maket he case for firing everyone. You don't have to justify individual cases - clean 'em all out. You can just say that:

1) All their appointments have expired (true)
2) Presidents frequently do a full turnover when they come into office (true but not completely applicable)
3) They were all appointed before 9/11 and we need new people to meet our country's new priorities.

There are a lot of lawyers in this country, and a lot of them are ambitious Republicans. If everyone goes at once, it would be seen as more fair and it becomes harder for any of them to complain; plus you get a new group of 93 people and their supporters who are happy with the administration. You tell all the loyal ones who left that they're now great candidates for federal judgeships, and the new ones will be even more in the pipeline. Really, there's a lot of upside for the GOP and the only downside is in continuity in Justice. Since Bush and others did this whole purge thing upon entering office, it's not like Justice can't handle it - they've been through it before. I'd be more surprised it didn't happen this way if it didn't feel like they were being disloyal to the people they could have kept on but didn't, with "loyal" being the key word this administration operates under.

TheraP wrote on May 9, 2007 11:08 AM:

Base your strategy on "collect insight and opinions"from a select few of 30 somethings, whom you refer to as "senior staff."

Heaven forbid you come up with a fair process, based on identifiable criteria, which you have defined.

Of course it's hard to have a fair process and define anything when you're out to do skullduggery and pervert justice.

Rusty wrote on May 9, 2007 11:13 AM:

I don't want the committee to get bogged down in the minute details. We still have not heard (under oath) who made the list. I want someone to say the name of the person where the list came from. Also, no more formality - mention the Senators and Contractors who were under investigation. Ask Abertross about these issues directly.

Code: FACE the music

Crust wrote on May 9, 2007 11:18 AM:

Hmm, it looks like the Virginia State Corporation Commission charges $1000/month to get access to their database listing registered LLC's, etc.:

http://scc.virginia.gov/division/clk/tape.htm

As best I can tell you can't verify Kyle Sampson's new LLC without paying for this data.

C 92 wrote on May 9, 2007 11:18 AM:

You can look up Cascade Consulting LLC through the State of Virginia's Corporations portal:

http://www.scc.virginia.gov/division/clk/diracc.htm

It's a bit of a throwback, and you've got to use the F- function keys, but the info is in there. You can also get Cascade's registration if you have access to a Lex-Nex account.

Gandhi wrote on May 9, 2007 11:20 AM:

I am sure Gonzo can provide a memo where he reprimands his aide for not executing the procedure the way it had been agreed upon.

Oh, no such memo exists because Gonzo had better things to do.

bobh wrote on May 9, 2007 11:21 AM:

Ass reaming, thy name is Alberto Gonzales tomorrow. Good Luck. And don't forget the KY.

osage wrote on May 9, 2007 11:23 AM:

If at least one Democrat doesn't call Gonzales a liar to his face, I'm going to become an Independent!

bordersmuggler wrote on May 9, 2007 11:24 AM:

Firstthingwedo

But how would they get away with replacing all 93 U.S. Attorneys under the Specter Amendment provision?

• Patriot Act provision allows the President to appoint USAt.s without congressional approval

John wrote on May 9, 2007 11:25 AM:

Man, this is the lamest excuse yet. I can't believe he expects anyone to believe it. How long til Sampson disputes it? The Bush administration is just a bunch of amateurs.

asdf wrote on May 9, 2007 11:26 AM:

Monica must have agreed to sacrifice herself at the alter of the God Republican.

It looks like she is going to learn what all the girls who throw themselves into the pyre learn. Perhaps she, Katherine, Linda, Paula, Fawn, and the rest can vacation together; all they have is each other. The one thing that’s certain, once the Republican men are finished with martyred girl de jour, she is done.

Crust wrote on May 9, 2007 11:28 AM:

Thanks, C 92. So the info is indeed accessible for free (even without a Lex-Nex account). Clicking around at your link and requesting "Registered Agent" for "Cascade Consulting, LLC" I got this info:

LLC ID: S217764
LLC NAME: CASCADE CONSULTING, LLC
LLC STATUS: 00 ACTIVE

CURRENT REGISTERED AGENT:
NAME: D KYLE SAMPSON
STREET: 4927 25TH ST SOUTH

CITY: ARLINGTON STATE: VA ZIP: 22206-0000
STATUS: 1 MEMBER/MAN EFF DATE: 03/22/07 LOC: 106 ARLINGTON COUNTY

Concerned American wrote on May 9, 2007 11:29 AM:

Heads up, someone might want to suggest this to someone important -

AG - not my fault, the aides fault
KS - not my fault, it was that other aide's fault
MG - it is my fault, but I have immunity.

case closed.

Show Me wrote on May 9, 2007 11:31 AM:

I wonder if you know about the,Fired Up Missouri blogsite...they have been on the Missouri angle all year.

LTO wrote on May 9, 2007 11:35 AM:

Is that a fast moving truck heading for Mr. Sampson?

Code word "snake", as in "Gonzales".

Mark wrote on May 9, 2007 11:37 AM:

Given that the AG is apparently finally starting to recall (yeah,right!) some of the events leading up to the purge, what are the chances that Rove (who would probably be in the best position to remember) either wrote or contributed substantially to this lastest sorry excuse.

security code: pocket, as in these guys are in the pocket of big (you provide the industry).

Stephen Johnson wrote on May 9, 2007 11:37 AM:

It is clear the White House political team, ala ROVE selected the names of people to be fired. Those fired were the ones who resisted breaking the law. The ones they kept were either in non-key areas and still played it right or agreed to break the law and push improper inditements. The political side of the white house did this and no one is directly addressing this. They are trying to build a case and get there eventually. Hope they make it.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 9, 2007 11:38 AM:

Does anyone here know if there is any truth to the rumor that Gonzales used make Sampson dress up in a pink tutu with "KARL" stenciled on the back and have Sampson prance about his office pants-less?

Jim Pharo wrote on May 9, 2007 11:39 AM:

I think TheraP nails it upthread. The process that he thought was supposed to be in place -- the process he chastises himself for not being more on top of -- is a sham.

There is no way to defend a process of picking which USA's to sack based on some high-level consultations. It is amateurish and would get any corporate executive sacked for cause. It also strongly suggests that it is a made-up excuse covering for the truth, which as far as I can tell we still don't have.

It's interesting to me that the process was to consult with senior staff. I thought AG thought he was also using "feedback" from members of Congress to make these decisions.

I think Congress should resolve a motion of censure against AG for his performances before Congress, and against hte President for continuing to keep this putz in office. Never forget AG is an agent for a principal.

Hank Essay wrote on May 9, 2007 11:39 AM:

Like President, Like AG...the rotten apple doesn't fall from the rotted tree...Same M.O.: Blame someone else...

Ah yes, the "responsibility era" has arrived.

EdNSted wrote on May 9, 2007 11:40 AM:

IANAL, but can anyone tell me at what point this obvious BS from Gonzales crosses the line and becomes a criminal act of obstruction? I would think it has already passed that point but I'm no expert on such matters.

If we are to take his statements at face value, then this man is not qualified to be a legal assistant, let alone a full fledged lawyer. And by his own admission, his management skills are more than little appalling. It seems the heighth of loonacy to believe that such a man could rise to the position of Attorney General of the United States.

So we are left with just two choices on what to believe here. Either Mr. Gonzales is one of the most incompetent bumbling fools to ever get a law degree, or he is being dishonest in the extreme, and possibly criminal, in his response to Congress and the American people.

William Ockham wrote on May 9, 2007 11:40 AM:

Man, I love this bit:

During those updates, to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign.

Translation:

I'm pretty sure Kyle never wrote down any of the things I said.

Anne wrote on May 9, 2007 11:41 AM:

I just don’t see how this helps Gonzales, or answers the questions about the overall situation. Saying he should have done things differently does not speak well for Gonzales’ judgment in the first instance; this is not an “oops” moment.

The big issue for me, though, is the fact that the decision to fire US Attorneys is the president’s – and yet, they keep trying to keep him as far away from this decision as possible. Why, for example, was Gonzales angry that someone had spoken to Bush about it? Is it possible that Bush never knew this was happening, that Gonzales knows that he acted without the authority to do so, and in addition to the flagrantly partisan nature of the firings, knows that it is this usurpation of authority that is not only bad for him, but really bad for Bush?

I want to know: who told the president, when did he sign off on this – where, for pity’s sake, is the paper trail on this?

penalcolony wrote on May 9, 2007 11:42 AM:

While we're at it, doesn't the very lawyerly Gonzales 3.0 also omit the fact that the idea of firing all 93 attorneys originated with Karl rather than Harriet?

ahem wrote on May 9, 2007 11:44 AM:

'Consensus' again: the get-out word for 'nah mah fawlt'.

Consensus = nonsensus.

fivefeethignrisin wrote on May 9, 2007 11:45 AM:

Gonzales excuse: "It was a bad plan. We all blame each other. I'll claim to take responsibility even though I won't quit. You'll all sit there and tell us how inept we are but you won't be able to pin anything on us except ineptitude. Nobody in this administration ever gets fired for ineptitude. Can I go now?"

TheraP wrote on May 9, 2007 11:46 AM:

Mrs P (tongue in cheek)

Maybe "Cascade Consulting" is a managed care network for all the people facing criminal charges who are desperately seeking legal assistance?

Certainly there is a cascade of scandals! And one can only imagine how this will be managed, given that so many need so many lawyers - and obviously they all need different ones.

Mrs P - I can well see how all your research skills are coming in handy here. (you and the bus driver are in the same league)

ahem wrote on May 9, 2007 11:50 AM:

Look, the committee needs to ask: 'Who do you consider had the authority to say "Add this person to the list"?'

The DOJ Consensus Dust doesn't magically add and remove names to Kyle's Little List. Someone or someones have to have the authority to do it.

Professing faith in the power of Magic Consensus Dust suggests he really doesn't want to know who's pulling the strings.

Ask him to name names. People who he thinks have the authority to say 'That one should be shitcanned'. And then compare it with the list of people who've denied responsibility already.

So, tomorrow, we'll get "To my knowledge, I do not recall in my mind remembering any decisions." And I hope the House committee is rough on him.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 9, 2007 11:56 AM:

But you told the Senate . . .

But you told the House . . .

But you spewed on the Sunday morning talk shows . . .

But you got soft-balled by Chris Matthews while saying . . .

AND just what the fuck is up with the children?

Milton Wiltmellow wrote on May 9, 2007 11:57 AM:

These people don't like paper trails or documentation -- ballots, pre-911 intelligence, Iraq cash for reconstruction, Rove's emails, DOJ purges, presidential records, etc.

Their lack of documentation allows the Bushies to shrug and say, "We're incompetent. We're playing hardball politics. We're working hard. We want peace." Blah, blah, blah. (Pay no attention to the bodies in New York, New Orleans, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Corpses tell no tales.)

When they can't keep their stories straight, they get the time and the benefit of the doubt to build new stories based upon the meager record available. The facts can be made to fit their procrustean narrative. This is how they "create reality." (See Ron Suskind.)

Will the Dems tear down the artifice? I doubt it. The Dems are smart people. If they could have, (or if they had wanted), they could have destroyed this bunch long ago. Instead, they give Alberto another chance to reconstruct the "mistakes were made" narrative so that the facts more or less fit the circumstances.

Which Senator will call Gonzales a liar?

draftedin68 wrote on May 9, 2007 11:58 AM:

...........

Who'da thunk?

AG AG (pronounce "ACK ACK") is employing "The Four Steps To Problem Resolution Process" that he and Duhhbya have perfected over their many years of collaboration.

The steps?

1 - Duck

2 - Dodge

3 - Bob

4 - Weave

Actually, Duhhbya often uses another three steps:

5 - Fire 'em

6 - Blame 'em

7 - Drape a medal on 'em

...........

Michael in Park Slope wrote on May 9, 2007 11:58 AM:

I believe everything he said. I also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny etc.

SC = lock as in lock the bastard up!

Allsburg wrote on May 9, 2007 11:58 AM:

Here are the two questions I want asked:

(1) Is it the responsibility of the Department of Justice to investigate possible instances of perjury in sworn testimony before Congress?

(2) How can you hope to be effective in leading any such investigation if you yourself are the target of that investigation?

bordersmuggler wrote on May 9, 2007 12:00 PM:

EdNSted

Gonzales did make it through Harvard Law School, a credible institution unlike Hypocrite U. in Virginia Beach, so he has valid academic credentials. His incompetence is feigned. Stupidity is not an excuse he can plead. Your second assessment is the correct one -- he is displaying extreme, criminal dishonesty.

Pam wrote on May 9, 2007 12:01 PM:

Just who are these "Senior Justice Officials" whom Sampson supposedly consulted, and are the names he submitted in any way consistent with the feedback they supposedly gave. Congress needs their names, and get them in and put them under oath. Time to get to the bottom of the lies. Every time Gonzo is called to task, the story is just a bit different.

r€nato wrote on May 9, 2007 12:03 PM:

As Maxwell Smart used to say... "would you believe..."

peter wrote on May 9, 2007 12:08 PM:

does anyone else see the irony of someone who passes the buck and is involved in an historic collapse starting a company called "Cascade"

rex applegate wrote on May 9, 2007 12:09 PM:

This latest "script" by Gonzo is a carefully worded piece authored by Karl Rove. Everthing critical to the case and to WH linkage is masked under "to the best of his knowledge" or "I believe" or "as I recall" which allows him to avoid perjury if evidence turns up to the contrary, while artfully pointing away from WH & Rove, instead pointing towards Sampson or other DOJ officials. Gonzo also says he told Sampson to keep "the White House" informed which in reality means just the opposite i.e. it means that Rove was keeping Sampson informed of what to do. So that way they can admit their was plenty of dialogue between them, but without documents(re: Rove's deleted e-mails), no one can say which was this discourse was travelling. All the Players know this, and as the drama unfolds (with new evidence) Rove will continue concocting new and updated "scripts." At some point either an e-mail will surface or someone will fail to follow script, until then, Rove remains at large. My personal feeling is that this one is far too spread out for Rove to keep it in check. Goodling is a major wildcard, it will be interesting to see if she moves off-script, because otherwise she might have to do some time in the slammer. Gonzo's main mission is to protect WH and see how much longer he can tread water before Congress goes for his scalp.

Barbara wrote on May 9, 2007 12:10 PM:

Senior officials--i.e. Monica Goodling and the Schols guy. The ones truly in the know. If Sampson hasn't already come clean, maybe he'll be like the USAs and decide that when going along with the program means being a fall guy, its time to tell the whole truth.

Does anyone else know he is a bishop in the Mormon church?

anelf wrote on May 9, 2007 12:12 PM:

I agree with Rich; if the new story is that the process was so flawed; why did they spend so much time defending their choices and slamming the fired US attorneys.

And when will the fired USA's get their jobs back?

RandyR wrote on May 9, 2007 12:14 PM:

General Gonzales, who put the names on the list?

Now they asked this question last time and he didn't know. Don't you think that he would find out for this round of questioning? Would it be the high point of arrogance to not find the answer before your next appearance?

General Gonzales why was Schlozman in WD MO for a year without Senate approval? Did you not say that all USAs would come before the Senate for approval? When will the 21 who are currently appointed come before the Senate?

General Gonzales were you aware of the requirement of Republican allegience for hiring? If no, why not?

Those are my questions.

Barbara wrote on May 9, 2007 12:16 PM:

Samson is a bishop in the Mormon church. I wasn't clear in my previous post.

slb wrote on May 9, 2007 12:23 PM:

Another installment in the long-running Republican saga, "Aides Gone Wild"

RandyR wrote on May 9, 2007 12:23 PM:

I also think that there is way too little heat on Harriet Miers. I wouldn't be suprised if Ms Miers was responsible for the list. Karl Rove might make the monkey dance but he's not a lawyer and doesn't know the in's and outs. I suspect that when Harriet said lets fire all 93 it was a serious consideration and the only reason they didn't was they couldn't find enough loyal Bushies to fill the spaces. Maybe we should think of her as the "evil granny".

Nina wrote on May 9, 2007 12:24 PM:

Seriously, if Gonzales' text of his testimony read,

"I am ashamed to admit that I have been dissembling in an effort to absorb the blame for this debacle, when in fact, orders for the attorney purge came directly from the White House. I'll be happy to answer any questions to elaborate on this statement."

What would happen next?
1. Faith in Government and Truth restored
2. Awake from dream with "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" in the DVD player
3. Loud bang is heard in Justice department parking lot

code word: "I can dream, can't I?"

TheraP wrote on May 9, 2007 12:25 PM:

"Bishop" for Mormons is simply like Christians being confirmed. (a step on the "path")

It's not such a big deal is it may sound.

Weasel Watch! wrote on May 9, 2007 12:31 PM:

D. Kyle and Noelle Sampson do not appear to have taken out a mortgage when they paid $425k for their house at 4927 25th St South in Arlington VA in June 2004.

There may be a perfectly good reason as to why the Sampsons had $425k in cash in their pockets in June 2004. Then again, maybe not.

davcbr wrote on May 9, 2007 12:39 PM:

I think what Gonzo is trying to say is that the selection process was a faith-based initiative

wrb wrote on May 9, 2007 12:45 PM:

Perjury plain and simple.

Jailtime for Gonzo

OleHippieChick wrote on May 9, 2007 12:56 PM:

D. Kyle and Noelle Sampson do not appear to have taken out a mortgage when they paid $425k for their house at 4927 25th St South in Arlington VA in June 2004.

There may be a perfectly good reason as to why the Sampsons had $425k in cash in their pockets in June 2004. Then again, maybe not.

Posted by: Weasel Watch!
Date: May 9, 2007 12:31 PM

DAMN, YOU'RE GOOD!

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 9, 2007 1:03 PM:

TheraP@May 9, 2007 11:46 AM

I wish I was in the same league as the bus driver! I spent two months researching Curt Weldon in the TPM Cafe and so far, only the Philadelphia Inquirer paid attention to me.

Not that the Inquirer gave me any credit, mind you, but it wasn't a coincidence that I wrote about John J. Gallagher's phony company, CSG Software, and two weeks later, so did the Inquirer.

Last year, the San Diego Union-Tribune asked me about my work on Mitchell Wade's phony Sure Foundation but since then, zip. What's going on in the media?

Wade's Sure Foundation has a direct link to the White House website (link below). The Foundation paid for the Spring 2003 White House Fellows Alumni International Trip to the "Northern Ireland Reconciliation Camp" in Sligo, Ireland.

I spent months investigating Bush pioneer Charles A. Gargano's role in the Eagle Building Technologies scandal but after writing to Clinton, Spitzer, Hevesi, the SEC, the NYT, Newsday, et al, I got nowhere.

I wish I knew how the bus driver got someone in charge to pay attention to him.

justaworkinstiff wrote on May 9, 2007 1:06 PM:

Anne:

Your question presumes GWB has any knowledge of what's really going on in his administraton when, unfortunately, it has been shown time and time again that he only does what someone else tells him to do. Now oppinions differ on who the puppet master for the last 6+ years has been, but GWB's history shows clearly he is not a strong manager type and his "conviction that he is right" regardless of facts indicates he can over look a lot of things even the pet canary sees clearly.
This newest "recolection" of Mr. Gonzales is IMHO a carefully crafted presentation to stop any deeper digging for e-mails or other testamony and from what I've read here and elsewhere it has a chance of being effective.
Once again this administration mananges to pull its malfeasance back under the rug. Our elected representatives need to push fast and hard for "documentation of the specific "who's" that were part of this, and several other, decisions. I get tired of reading the blind statement of "high ranking DOJ officials" . Folks that statement could cover the damn janitor. I want to know WHO decided these SA's needed to go. then we can find out the motives of why they had to go. Untill the committe is asking the WHO everyone can point everywhere as to the why.

jaywrite wrote on May 9, 2007 1:09 PM:

Has anyone noticed the convenient convergence of the arrest of 6 terrorists and the coming testimony of Gonzales?

I so wonder if Christi (USA New Jersey) has been commandeered to finally end the surveillance of the terrorists and bring them out into the open with arrests and indictments in order to take the MSM's focus off of Gonzales.

sr wrote on May 9, 2007 1:10 PM:

What I haven't seen in any of these comments is this question:

Mr. Gonzales, when you were presented the list of attorneys to be fired and asked to approve it, were you not aware of -- at least -- several sensitive on-going investigations being conducted by those US attorneys? For example, did you ask any questions about Carol Lam, and how firing her in the middle of her investigation stemming from the Duke Cunningham scandal would affect the ongoing work her office was doing? What about David Iglesias, whom you knew personally, and likely related to as another hispanic republican from the Southwest? Did you just accept the "consensus" or did you ask some hard questions about how and why these attorneys were chosen.

The point is, if this was truly delegated away and he was only presented with a list at the end of the process, it's impossible to believe that Gonzales didn't have independent information about the US Attorneys on the list that would have raised red flags about firing them. If I'm a CEO, and I ask for a list of managers to fire, I'm going to be at least expecting certain names to show up on the list (if I have even a passing familiarity with the operations of my own company). When I'm ultimately presented with a list of names of managers I admire with great reputations (and some of them in the middle of an important iniative for the company), I'm going to question the committee about the criteria they used. If Gonzales is telling the truth, he should have expected to see Kevin Ryan's name, but none of the others on the list. When he got a list with Lam, Iglesias, McKay, Cummins, he should have said, "Wait a minute, these are some of our best people..."

Much more likely, he knew all along that these US Attorneys were being considered for firing, and knew it was politically motivated, and did nothing to stop it because he was taking orders from the White House.

Brandon wrote on May 9, 2007 1:15 PM:

@ TheraP

Being a bishop is a big deal in the mormon church. It means he is the spiritual leader of a Ward, which, depending on the area, should be about 500 people or so. Very few mormons are called to be bishops. One of the duties of a bishop is to verify the moral rectitude of the members of his ward through annual worthiness interviews. Among the questions asked in these interviews is this one: "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?"

OleHippieChick wrote on May 9, 2007 1:23 PM:

sr, a likely story! No, really. From your keyboard to directly searing the eyeballs of pertinent investigative staff!

PS: If you're reading this, investigative staff, kindly get clever(er); better questions beget better answers. For someone's god's sake, GET TO THE TRUTH. We're dying for lack of it.

brandon wrote on May 9, 2007 1:23 PM:

I wonder why they are even bothering to have gonezales back. This thing will go nowhere. They already got his testimony. It seems like the next intellegent step would be to do everything they can to get the emails.

TheraP wrote on May 9, 2007 1:30 PM:

I stand corrected.

Even though 500 people is pretty small for a "bishop."

Duckman GR wrote on May 9, 2007 1:37 PM:

What a truly hideous "man" AG is. Not only can't he do his job right, but it sounds like he doesn't do anything at all, and shows no respect for the people working under him, with what looks like no adherence to common labor laws at all.

And then he's going to blame it all on his disappointing aide Kyle. No fault of Abu, no sirree, none whatsoever.

Him and his manicures and pretty haircuts (how much do those cost I wonder) and absolutely no humanity at all. He stands shoulder to shoulder with Himmler and Eichman for his utter lack of morality.

Carl Nyberg wrote on May 9, 2007 1:39 PM:

AGAG, you delegated to very partisan people the authority to fire U.S. attorneys. You avoided questioning them about their decisions to fire U.S. attorneys. And many, if not all the firings, seemed to be--if not driven by partisan political motives--in harmony with partisan political motives.

You claim that you failed to foresee partisan political people, like Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling, would approach decision making as partisan political people.

You and President Bush seem to want me to believe you are foolish, naive and generally pretty stupid. Of course, President Bush hasn't fired you, so he obviously doesn't think you're incompetent.

The alternative explanation is that you were at least partially part of a conspiracy to use the power of the Justice Department for partisan political ends. This explanation is much more consistent with President Bush's decision not to fire you.

Which do you think an objective observer would conclude is more likely? The Attorney General of the United States is an incompetent fool? Or the Bush administration engaged in a conspiracy to use the power of the Justice Department for partisan political ends and you are continuing to obfuscate this conspiracy by providing dishonest and evasive answers?

Brandon wrote on May 9, 2007 1:58 PM:

Ya, the bishop thing might be misleading if people take it in the Catholic sense.

ebmck wrote on May 9, 2007 2:37 PM:

So let me get this straight.

I wasn't involved and I don't remember anything. But if I WAS involved, I WOULD remember that it wasn't my fault or the White House's fault. I placed my trust in some underling that clearly wasn't up to the responsibility.

Gosh, I hate it when good things happen to bad people.

This guy is AT BEST neglecting his duties as AG and at WORST lefting his leg on the U.S. Constitution.

I mean, this is the top attorney in the whole damn country and he's perjuring himself before Congress.

Didn't we impeach some guy in the 90's for supposedly doing that?

EdNSted wrote on May 9, 2007 2:45 PM:

The increasing dysfunction of the Bush administration reminds me of a dysfunctional company I once worked for. One that had been successful for nearly 35 years. A company where, shortly after I joined them, saw change in senior management had a disasterous impact. The company became one where real power was held very closely by a precious few. Where meaningless titles were assigned (Director, Vice President, Senior Administrator, etc.) but people were not given these titles based on either their competence or performance. Where performance was never really an issue because almost no one in the company was granted the authority to do the tasks that they had been assigned. Where rewards were based solely on personal relationships. Where long-time competent people were forced out. Where all decsions for even the minutest of decsion had to be approved by senior management. Where long-time customers were treated poorly.

Two years after I joined the company, it folded.

angryvietnamvet wrote on May 9, 2007 2:57 PM:

Mr. Amnesia certainly recalls a lot of details now concerning his discussions with Mr. Sampson back in early 2005. Lots of details about his instructions. How convenient. I wonder if his memory has also cleared up regarding matters he did not recall at his last appeareance before the Judiciary Committee? When is going to be impeached for Gawd's sake ? Basta ! No aguanto mas mentiras !!

ColoradoDem wrote on May 9, 2007 3:02 PM:

Is there some special reason that this clown hasn't been disbarred yet? Surely THAT would mean he's out as AG!

DEN wrote on May 9, 2007 3:15 PM:

Googled Cascade Consulting LLC and came up with this place in Idaho?

Somebody is hiding something here as this site acts like a CIA front site, no owners, no names, etc.

Veeery interesting!

DEN wrote on May 9, 2007 3:17 PM:

Sorry, LINK:Cascade Consulting LLC

DEN wrote on May 9, 2007 3:24 PM:

http://www.cascadeconsultingllc.com/index.htm

Ok, I have not posted here before and did not realize HTML did not work, duh!

Mehitabel wrote on May 9, 2007 3:45 PM:

I remembered a very right leaning friend (her dogs, Nixon and Reagan died--so she replaced them with puppies named Bush and Cheney)telling me that teenagers, in mass numbers, were justifying oral sex because "the President (Clinton) said it wasn't "sex"." So I recently asked her if she will now let her teens get away with the "I don't recall" or the "I don't recall recalling" or the "I was in charge but it was someone else who was responsible but I don't recall who it was" defense when she has suspicions regarding their behaviour. Her reply "I've got to take this other call."

bordersmuggler wrote on May 9, 2007 4:11 PM:

jaywrite@May 9, 2007 01:09 PM

The leader of the New Jersey conspiracy was (this is no bull) a pizza delivery guy. The Fort Dix Army Base in New Jersey was selected as a target for the simple reason that he had delivered pizza there. Their "jihadi" training consisted of shooting paintball guns in the Pocono Mountains in Pennsylvania.

Anonymous wrote on May 9, 2007 5:32 PM:

Retroactive coverups have loose ends. Pull the right string and it all falls apart. Have they found one yet?

Code: Profit ...from it.

stephennnn wrote on May 9, 2007 6:59 PM:

Great strategy by Gonzo. Wait until all of the facts are on the table then sort through it all and develop a plausible story line based on the irrifutable evidence. Unfortunately I don´t believe such a story can be fabricate in its entirety without some major flaws. It will be interesting to see how he keeps it all together at the hearing. I am certain Leahy has a competent staff of people that will follow every logical premise put forth by G.

James wrote on May 9, 2007 7:12 PM:

If the "Truth" is: "Top DoJ officials were always on call as stenographers for Rove; and Rove fed them a list of firees, which they then fired with no clue as to "why" other than Rove told them to do so;" then Gonzo's current story is the only one available to them for covering Rove's ass against obstruction-of-justice and conspiracy indictments. The fact that Gonzo's story is no more persuasive than a 7-year-old miscreant's tale is unavoidable under these circumstances. If any of them were adults, they would never have been selected for the job of taking notes over the phone from Rove.

Hardheaded Liberal wrote on May 9, 2007 7:52 PM:

Another loyal Bushie (here Gonzo) steps even further away from the Reality-Based Community.

Since Gonzo's repeated testimonies and statements have never before come up with this explanation of the process, SOMEONE has to have scripted this for him!

Nominations for the ghost writer, anyone? How about Brad Schlozman? He's back in town, right?

security code: dress

as in the dressing down Gonzo will get tomorrow?

conniptionfit wrote on May 9, 2007 8:07 PM:

Mr. Gonzales, why did you consider Mr Sampson to be qualified to evaluate the USAs for retention or dismissal? Did it trouble you at all that you were tasking a very young, inexperienced subordinate, with no trial experience and no experience as a prosecutor or in any USAs office, with a job far above his ability and pay grade? Which "Senior Department Officials" did you expect Sampson to speak with about the USAs? Whose recommendations and evaluations did he get for the list? Why don't you know? Given that this scandal has been going on for some time now why have you not bothered to find out the answers to all the questions the committee has asked you for which you have answered either you don't know or don't recall?

Michael Stevens wrote on May 9, 2007 8:43 PM:

Sampson's testimony could be laying the foundation for a perjury charge against Gonzales.

But if it goes no further than Gonzales's word against Sampson's, neither is likely to be charged with perjury. Some kind of corroborating evidence will need to support one story over the other. Right now, the corroborating evidence seems a bit thin, it's just a he-said, he-said.

This equilibrium could quickly shift, especially once Goodling testifies. As more staffers give testimony directly at odds with that of Gonzo, the changes of a perjury charge against him rise.

So how would the DOJ decide whether or how to prosecute the head of their own organization? I don't think Gonzo would have any say in it. At this point in time, the "acting attorney general" for all matters relating to AttorneyGate is *not* Gonzo, it's the Solicitor General, Paul Clement.

Clement is a rising star in the Republican judicial ranks. One would think a resume like his should put him at the top of the list for next decade's Republican Supreme Court nominees.

Undergrad foreign service at Georgetown, Graduate Economics at Cambridge, magna cum laude at Harvard Law, editor of the Harvard Law Review, clerked for Scalia and has argued 25 cases before the Supreme Court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_D._Clement

Put simply, I can't imagine Paul Clement wanted to be anywhere near this mess, let alone put in charge of it. I think he's having to walk the tightrope of looking like a solid Republican without tying his rising star to Gonzales's sinking ship.

The most politically prudent step Clement could make would be the appointment of a Special Prosecutor. A Special Prosecutor would wash Clement's hands of this entire mess. But Clement can't be too hasty in appointing a prosecutor, lest he look like a traitor to the Republican faithful.

What Clement needs is some help from Congress, some plausible deniability. Clement needs to be able to say that he had no choice. That the evidence was so solid, and presented such a conflict of interest within the Department, that his hands were tied.

I'm not certain that Clement has the sole legal authority to appoint a Special Prosecutor, but if the AG or President were to quash such a request, the firestorm would probably eclipse anything we've seen thus far.

If Congress can present Clement with moderately firm evidence of criminal activity within the top ranks of the department, I suspect Clement would "reluctantly" accede to Congress's request for a Special Prosecutor.

TC wrote on May 9, 2007 10:05 PM:

So why would replacing 93 USAs be such a big deal?
Clinton did it at the start of his term and W did it at the start of his. What is so disruptive about it at the start of a second termf? It's a bogus reason for selective firing for purely political reasons.

bjobotts wrote on May 9, 2007 11:02 PM:

Are you saying that all those "lost" emails between the DoJ and the WH were merely communications to bring the WH up to date and informed of the progress of replacing USAs? What about the emails between Cummins and Rove concerning caging ? Are you unaware of these communications? If you are aware why have charges not been brought. Why are you not investigating Rove? Cummins?
If you work for the American People why do you continually protect the WH from oversight?

Firstthingwedo wrote on May 10, 2007 12:46 AM:

Bordersmugler - with regard to how could he get all 93 approved - the original plan would have been executed nearly immediately after the 2nd term began, while the GOP still had majorities in both houses, so they could all be approved normally.

Dances With Fascists wrote on May 10, 2007 10:34 PM:

There's an angle to this scandal that seems to so far have been completely overlooked: the question of WHY the Bush crime family stuck their necks out as far as they did to replace 8 federal prosecutors. They MUST have had a very compelling reason, right?

There's a red herring injected into the mix too: that the federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president and ALL of them could just as well have been replaced. Well that is actually normal operating procedure at the beginning of a new president's term, getting his team together, nothing really unusual about that so why should anyone object to only firing eight? The reason of course is that those positions are not supposed to be overtly political and it is HIGHLY UNUSUAL for these folks to be replaced midterm. It is SO UNUSUAL as to draw scrutiny, and they must have known such scrutiny would occur yet they took the risk anyway. Why?

IMO their reason is an integral part of the neocon agenda. Judging from the proliferation of secret executive orders, the long history of executive orders being set in place to effectively transfer all power to the president in certain kinds of national emergencies, the preparation of detainment camps all around the country, whipped-up fears of terrorism, Bush's own fantasies about being dictator, the many lies told to conceal their agenda and PNAC's dark vision for greater presidential power and world domination, all these things are consistent with the likely scenario that Bush intends to declare martial law, suspend the Constitution, and install himself as de facto dictator. It will just be for the "duration of the emergency" of course, but whatever emergency the Bush crime family fabricates this time will likely revolve around terrorism (shades of 9/11) and thus persist for a very long time. Thus will the PNAC's stated desire for an all-powerful presidency and military domination of the world come about.

Bush NEEDS all the federal prosecutors in his pocket because he will need law enforcement on his side for his martial law decree to stand, and they are more or less the top federal cops in each state. State law enforcement is supposed to defer to Federal jurisdiction, and all law enforcement is composed of a military-style pecking order deeply ingrained into law enforcement's corporate culture so successfully that if the topmost cop says something is legal, then all the authoritarian bootlickers down the line will support it. That's just the way it works most of the time, but for the declaration of martial law to stick, it has to work all the time. Bush can't declare martial law while there is any serious risk of defections among those federal prosecutors, so they were all loyalty-tested, presumably by asking them to compromise their ethics as each of the fired ones apparently was. The most important question that has so far gone unasked, is "What exactly did all the other prosecutors who were NOT fired do to pass their loyalty tests?". They all must have done something shady, but none of those actions has been dug out yet and you can be sure none of them will be volunteering information about their corruption. The fired ones were the only ones with any integrity, the ones remaining and the ones that replaced the firees are now complete lackeys for the Bush crime family and can be expected to line up right behind Bush and Gonzo when martial law is declared, fully in support. Think of the chaos that would ensue if even just a few of them had enough integrity to point out that the Constitution should prevail and no, America does not need martial law or a dictator. No, Bush and his co-conspirators can't have that, they NEED to have all their ducks in a row before they declare martial law.

And now they do. Gonzo is (very loyally) taking some heat for it, but they have successfully deflected the issue into trivializing over the process of the firings and there are no known ongoing investigations into what criminal acts the rest of the federal prosecutors must have performed to keep their jobs. Karl Rove is a brilliant dissembler and no doubt he already has prepared the memo that will be circulated to all the federal prosecutors when the declaration of martial law is made. They can all be expected to follow the party line now that the few with integrity have been replaced.

Prepare for a declaration of martial law, they are almost ready now for the final implementation of the PNAC agenda.