Conservatives shut down Sampson hearing? Moments ago, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) interrupted Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): LEAHY: If the senator would yield, and I apologize. I apologize to Mr. Sampson. We’ve just received 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 – GRASSLEY: Does it apply to a Republican too? LEAHY: Uh, the Republicans are the ones who don’t want to have the hearing, so the Republicans have the right under the rules to do that. We will stand — we will not adjourn, we will stay in recess until the Senate recesses. We will come back, and Sen. Grassley, if he wishes to be heard further, will be the first one to be heard. UPDATE: A Senate Judiciary Committee source tells ThinkProgress conservatives objected to the hearing lasting beyond two hours, but then backed down after realizing it was a huge strategic blunder. Leahy explains: “Just so people can understand what’s going on here. The lack of permission went forward has now been changed. I had raised questions and the — whatever objection there was on the Republican side has been withdrawn, so that we can continue. When Mr. Sampson comes back, we will start with Sen. Durbin. Somebody here just asked me if this all could have just been all an accident, that we had this lack of concurrence by the Republicans to go forward. I grew up in a faith that believes in miracles, and it’s conceivable as an accident, I’ve been here 33 years and I’ve never seen it happen before. So maybe it was, but I suspect it was not.
link Ex-aide: Gonzales signed off on firings By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 8 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Contrary to his public statements, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was deeply involved in the firing of eight federal prosecutors, his former top aide said Thursday, adding that the final decision on who was to be dismissed was made by Gonzales and President Bush's former counsel. ADVERTISEMENT "I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions of U.S. attorney removals was accurate," Kyle Sampson, who quit this month as Gonzales' chief of staff, told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign." Responding to questions from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (news, bio, voting record), D-R.I., Sampson rejected the notion that the dismissals were ordered by young or inexperienced Justice Department officials. "The decision makers in this case were the attorney general and the counsel to the president," he told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I and others made staff recommendations but they were approved and signed off on by the principals." The White House response was notably muted. "I'm going to have to let the attorney general speak for himself," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. Sampson's testimony and thousands of e-mails released over the past two weeks point to a much deeper involvement by Gonzales and then-White House counsel Harriet Miers in discussions taking place over several months about which U.S. attorneys to fire. "The attorney general was aware of this process from the beginning in early 2005," Sampson testified Thursday. "He and I had discussions about it during the thinking phase of the process. Then in the more final phase ... he asked me to make sure that the process was appropriate." Gonzales said on March 13 that he did not participate in discussions or see any documents about the firings. Documents released last week show he attended a Nov. 27 meeting with senior aides on the topic, where he approved a detailed plan to carry out the dismissals. Gonzales later recanted, saying he had signed off on the plan to fire the prosecutors. Sampson, sitting alone at the witness table, said the fired prosecutors were found to be insufficiently committed to the president's law enforcement priorities. His appearance was the latest act in a political drama that has shaken the Bush administration and imperiled Gonzales' tenure at the Justice Department. Gonzales planned to meet with U.S. attorneys from the mid-Atlantic region at Justice Department headquarters Thursday, wrapping up a multistate tour in which he touted the agency's crackdown on child predators. As he traveled, the Justice Department unraveled, according to Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa. "It is generally acknowledged that the Department of Justice is in a state of disrepair, perhaps even dysfunction, because of what has happened," Specter said. The remaining U.S. attorneys are skittish, he said, "not knowing when the other shoe may drop." Sampson said he would testify as long as need be. His comments contradicted Gonzales' earlier denial of being involved in the firings, as well as the attorney general's suggestion that two other Justice Department officials misled Congress about the firings because they had been badly briefed. "I don't think it's accurate if the statement implies that I intended to mislead the Congress," Sampson said. "I shared information with anyone who wanted it. I was very open and collaborative in the process." Sampson also testified the prosecutors were fired last year because they did not sufficiently support Bush's priorities, defending a standard that Democrats called "highly improper." "The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," Sampson said. "Some were asked to resign because they were not carrying out the president's and the attorney general's priorities," he said. "In some sense that may be described as political by some people." He denied that any prosecutor was fired for pursuing corruption cases that might hurt the administration. "To my knowledge, nothing of the sort occurred here," Sampson told the committee. Democrats rejected the concept of mixing politics with federal law enforcement. They accused the Bush administration of cronyism and trying to circumvent the Senate confirmation process by installing favored GOP allies in plum jobs as U.S. attorneys. "We have a situation that's highly improper. It corrodes the public's trust in our system of Justice," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record). "It's wrong." Sampson acknowledged that at one point he had advocated using a new provision in the Patriot Act to get around Senate confirmation of new federal prosecutors, but Gonzales rejected the suggestion. "He thought it was a bad idea and he was right," Sampson said. Sampson, who quit earlier this month amid the furor, disputed Democratic charges that the firings were a purge by intimidation and a warning to the remaining prosecutors to fall in line. Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, offered Sampson some support, saying he had seen no evidence that the dismissals were "designed to impede or actually did impede a criminal investigation or prosecution." Hours before Sampson's testimony, the Justice Department admitted that it gave senators inaccurate information about the firings and presidential political adviser Karl Rove's role in trying to secure a U.S. attorney's post in Arkansas for one of his former aides, Tim Griffin. Justice officials acknowledged that a Feb. 23 letter to four Democratic senators erred in asserting that the department was not aware of any role Rove played in the decision to appoint Griffin to replace U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins in Little Rock, Ark. Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said that certain statements in last month's letter to Democratic lawmakers appeared to be "contradicted by department documents included in our production."
Hum.... Getting too close to Rove and Miers? Responding to questions from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Sampson rejected the notion that the dismissals were ordered by young or inexperienced Justice Department officials. "The decision makers in this case were the attorney general and the counsel to the president," he told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I and others made staff recommendations but they were approved and signed off on by the principals." The White House response was notably muted. "I'm going to have to let the attorney general speak for himself," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070329/fired-prosecutors
Love the lead. From today's WaPo-- Taking One for the Team, When He Could Remember By Dana Milbank Friday, March 30, 2007; A02 Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, was in his fourth hour testifying yesterday about the firing of federal prosecutors when Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy cut him off. "We've just received word that the Republicans have objected, under the Senate rules, to this meeting continuing," Leahy (D-Vt.) announced before angrily bringing down the gavel. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), in the middle of questioning Sampson, was puzzled. "Does it apply to a Republican, too?" he inquired. It turned out that nobody had really objected -- Republicans blamed a procedural mistake in their cloakroom for the false alarm -- and order in the committee was restored. But not before Democrats turned the gaffe into a PR bonanza. "The Republicans are the ones that don't want to have the hearing," Leahy inveighed. "What bothers me is if nobody has anything to hide, why not have these hearings, why not have them in the open?" In the senatorial equivalent of the "we shall fight on the beaches" speech, he continued: "We will have the hearings if we have to have them in the evenings or on weekends or during recess!" In the confusion, Sampson's lawyer Brad Berenson noticed that the witness chair was empty. "Where's Kyle?" he asked reporters. Republicans had, inadvertently, produced a fitting sequel to the prosecutor imbroglio. The Bush administration's mishandling of the firings of eight U.S. attorneys and the misinformation its Justice Department sent Congress turned an embarrassing story into a full scandal. Yesterday, the Senate Republicans' procedural mishap turned a modestly embarrassing hearing into a spectacle. That's too bad for the GOP, because Sampson seemed content to fall on his sword rather than naming names when he was questioned about the prosecutor mess. Only the red felt on the witness table concealed the blood. "I could have and should have helped to prevent this," Sampson offered. "I let the attorney general and the department down. . . . I failed to organize a more effective response. . . . It was a failure on my part. . . . I will hold myself responsible. . . . I wish we could do it all over again." The witness fessed up to an expanding list of sins. He admitted that the Justice Department was trying to circumvent the Senate confirmation process. He confessed that he proposed firing Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the Valerie Plame leak case. "I regretted it," he explained. "I knew that it was the wrong thing to do." But the self-sacrificing witness still managed -- inadvertently, perhaps -- to implicate Gonzales and Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove. Sampson, who resigned from the Justice Department earlier this month, admitted that Gonzales "had received a complaint from Karl Rove about U.S. attorneys in three jurisdictions." Asked about the accuracy of Gonzales's claim of non-involvement, Sampson confessed: "I don't think it's entirely accurate what he said." Walking down the center aisle with no fewer than six lawyers, some carrying heavy briefcases, the witness made a grand entrance. His hair was trim and gelled, his frameless octagonal glasses polished clean. Described in news accounts as a young version of Rove, Sampson was indeed a bit pudgy and jowly, and he spoke in a nerdy voice that sounded strange coming from a man whose combative e-mails had been released by the Justice Department in recent weeks. His tie was a bright yellow -- the same color chosen by Sen. Chuck Schumer, who moved quickly to take control of the proceedings. The New York Democrat warned there would be "lengthy" questioning, and he made good on his threat. Seven hours into the hearing, Schumer -- ignoring notes from Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) pleading with him to cease and desist -- announced: "We're on Round Four here." "The purpose is, as they said in 'Dragnet,' just the facts, ma'am," Schumer advised the witness. Sampson, however, was a little fuzzy. "I can't pretend to know or remember every fact that may be of relevance," he warned at the start -- and he wasn't kidding. He used the phrase "I don't remember" a memorable 122 times. It may have been a tactical effort to limit his risk of perjury, but Sampson displayed the recall of a man who recently fell off a ladder. "Since the 2004 election, did you speak with the president about replacing U.S. attorneys?" Leahy asked. "I don't ever remember speaking to the president after the 2004 election," he said. (He later remembered that he had.) "Did you have further communications with the White House regarding the plan to regard and replace several U.S. attorneys?" "I don't remember specifically." "I wish you did remember," Leahy finally said. "I would hope that you would search your memory as we go along." Sampson searched. He came up empty. After Schumer elicited three consecutive I-don't-remembers, John Cornyn (R-Tex.) objected to the questioning style. Leahy overruled him. "We're trying to find what in heaven's name he does remember," the chairman said. Schumer persisted, eventually asking the witness a question about Rove's role. "I don't remember," Sampson said. "I don't remember anything like that. I don't think so. I don't remember. I don't remember." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032901366_pf.html
Hum... Sounds like Fredo is changing his story again. On March 13 he emphatically stated that he had nothing to do with the firing of 8 US attorneys. After Sampson's testimony yesterday his story now is "I don't recall." Man! That sure is a theme with this administration.
Under ordinary circumstances Gonzales should be sunk but this Admin. figures they got nothing to lose staying with him. The problem with this situation is that its still not clear that firing the US Attorneys for political reasons is illegal. Its unethical and this just further adds to the sorry ethical record of this Admin. but with everything else and GW Bush not up for reelection they figure another scandal won't hurt them more.
And any indictment the Attorney General brings up in the next 22 months (do we really have 22 months to go? )is going to be screamed "politically motivated" by a defense lawyer. But go ahead keep him there. The investigations, abu graib, gitmo, wire taps, searching mail, habeas corpus, all will be endless.
I think most reasonable people would look at how this administration operates, look at what has been trickling out about this, and then make an educated guess that this is really about obstruction of justice by deliberately interfering with ongoing investigations. That's really the simplest explanation for how this has been handled by the administration.
As I said this is highly unethical but I'm not yet convinced this is illegal. Obstruction of justice is a difficult charge to make here. Its one thing to argue that they didn't hew the Bush line close enough and were fired but another to say that there was a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice by removing US attorneys so controversial prosecutions would be stopped. I understand that it was brought up that there are some complaints about them prosecuting Republicans but most seem to be that they weren't prosecuting Democrats enough. While it is unethical to sack a prosecutor because you feel they aren't prosecuting political opponents that's not obstructing justice.
Fine. Then why the lying and obfuscation? Why the hiding of emails under non-WH accounts? Why can no administrative official describe why the lists were made and what criteria were used? Why tell the fired attorneys one thing and then say another thing to people when they asked about the firings? Given the history of this administration... supporting every unethical act from torture to spying to a diminution of voting rights... do you really think they would go through this merely because it's just unethical? If it were just unethical, they would thumbing their noses at Congress. Instead, they're scambling. Again, Occam's Razor: the simplest answer is that they are hiding deliberate malfeasance and the simplest explanation for what that malfeasance is is obstruction of justice. I really think that's where we're at until something else comes out that makes it less than what it looks like or (much more likely) more than what we expect.
While this Admin. has done a lot of unethical, and more than likely some flat out illegal things, they still have concern about how history will view them. Also given the Democrats winning Congress were likely concerned about word of this getting out and wanted to limit that. Your presumption seems to be that they expected be caught. I don't think they were predicting this would blow up so much and likely figured that the US Attorneys being good Republicans would be willing to keep quiet about it. There is a possibility they are hiding malfeasance but I don't think that is anywhere near the simplest answer. The simplest answer seems to me what we know at the moment. The US attorneys were dismissed in an unethical manner that would not only reflect badly on the Admin. but also on a few Congressional Republicans. They believed that they could do this with little attention and have instead miscalculated and this has blown up in their faces. Obstruction of justice is a possibility but I haven't seen evidence regarding what they might be obstructing. Until something comes out specifically indicating there was some case that the Admin. wanted ended and firing these prosecutors would do that I don't see obstruction of justice as being the simplest explanation since it requires a further deduction of information that we don't have. Also just to add I'm not deliberately trying to defend the Admin. but I'm not aware if laws have been broken and the one thing I haven't heard is that it was illegal to fire the attorneys. Unethical and unprecedented certainly but I'm not ready to declare it illegal. I could be wrong though..
House Democrats: White House liaison has no right to plead Fifth Michael Roston Published: Tuesday April 3, 2007 House Democrats leading the investigation of the firing of eight US Attorneys are questioning the legal strategy of a top Justice Department official. Monica Goodling, who serves as liaison to the White House, hopes to avoid providing testimony ordered through a subpoena by invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. However, in a letter sent to her attorney today and acquired by RAW STORY, Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Linda Sánchez (D-CA) suggest that Goodling doesn't have a basis to invoke that right, and, therefore, she shouldn't be exempted from testifying before the House Judiciary Committee. "We are concerned that several of the asserted grounds for refusing to testify do not satisfy the well-established bases for a proper invocation of the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination," the two Democrats on the Judiciary Committee wrote. "The Fifth Amendment privilege, under long-standing Supreme Court precedents, does not provide a reason to fail to appear to testify; the privilege must be invoked by the witness on a question-by-question basis." Goodling, who is on leave from her position as the Justice Department's White House Liaison, informed both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees in recent weeks that she would invoke her rights against self-incrimination if called to testify concerning her role in the US Attorneys matter. Conyers and Sánchez said that Goodling's concerns were not valid. "The fact that a few Senators and Members of the House have expressed publicly their doubts about the credibility of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General in their representations to Congress about the U.S. Attorneys' termination does not in any way excuse your client from answering questions honestly and to the best of her ability," Conyers and Sánchez explained. They were particularly critical of Goodling's concerns about finding herself in a situation comparable to former White House staff members I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and David Safavian, whom were both convicted of assorted crimes during the course of the Bush administration. "Both of those individuals, former high-ranking officials in the Bush Administration, were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by juries of their peers, in cases brought by Presidentially appointed U.S. Attorneys, of knowingly and intentionally lying or providing false information primarily to Executive branch agents or officials," the two Democrats wrote. "If her testimony is truthful, she will have nothing to worry about in terms of a perjury prosecution." The House Democrats are asking Goodling to promptly agree to speak with the Committee in order to provide "justification" for her intended defense. "We write to request that your client, Ms. Goodling, voluntarily appear to be interviewed by our staff in the next week and to discuss the justification for her apparent decision to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege," they wrote. http://rawstory.com/news/2007/House_Dems_Goodling_has_no_basis_0403.html
Oh man! Leahy shames Gonzales -- Just a taste of what's to come. In a letter today to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (who's doggedly preparing for his upcoming testimony), Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) scolded Gonzales for failing to respond to prior questions from the committee and requested that Gonzales prepare a written statement in advance of his April 17 hearing. Leahy said the statement should include "a full and complete account of the development of the plan to replace United States Attorneys, and all the specifics of your role in connection with this matter." Leahy also not so subtly rebuked Gonzales and the administration for publicly complaining about the late hearing date; the White House has said they want it "sooner rather than later" to "get the facts." Leahy wrote: "As you will recall, my staff had requested earlier dates..., but you had declined those offers." And after detailing Gonzales' failures in providing answers to written questions from the committee -- sometimes ignoring questions for as long as six months -- Leahy concluded: The letter: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/leahy-gonzales-answers/
More documents out there and they redacted stuff relating to the topic... not going to be fun for AL G on the Hill...
What did a lawyer need to do to not get fired by AlGonzo? Well, it happened -- in Wisconsin. And the U.S. attorney in the case is Milwaukee's Steven Biskupic, appointed by Bush in 2002. Somehow he's been given the privilege of serving beyond his four year term. Dozens of readers have written in, asking if this is what a "loyal Bushie" looks like. It's hard to see it otherwise. http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002965.php
