I had the chance to watch portions of the Congressional testimony delivered by Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Alberto Gonzales. It was worth it. I recommend finding the time to view it yourself, because you’ll get a sense of these players far better than anything you'll derive from a news summary — or even BC Magazine! Also, YouTube has tons of video to choose between…enjoy!
I personally think Sampson came across as sincere and convincing, for the most part, though he seemed like a guy given far more responsibility than he could handle. He said "I don't know" or "I don't recall" a lot, but that's normal and prudent. He was particularly convincing when he flatly denied that the firings were related to ongoing investigations or other purely political considerations.
His main theme was clear: the firings were legal, but perhaps poorly handled. And the response to Congressional questioning was totally botched, which was why he resigned.
Fair enough, but there were plenty of troubling details that senators of both parties kept bringing up. Orrin Hatch pitched softballs, but Jeff Sessions sharply criticized the whole affair.
At the risk of writing a memo, may I list the more salient points?
1. While saying the firings were based on performance, Sampson acknowledged that the process was not "scientific nor extensively documented." Which led several senators to ask just which criteria were used to select these particular attorneys for removal?
2. He said Lam was criticized for her lack of immigration prosecutions. Then Sen. Diane Feinstein read a February 2006 letter from the Justice Department praising Lam for her immigration work, with prosecutions up three or fourfold and alien smuggling down by half. That said, the letter was apparently describing improvements over 2004. So one interpretation could be that Lam was doing a horrible job in 2004 — when the firing process was already underway — and her improved performance in 2005 wasn't enough to save her.
3. Sampson later added that Lam was also let go for her failure to pursue gun violations aggressively enough, which seemed like a bit of alternate justification after his initial justification was undermined.
4. He repeated several times, under prodding from senators, that Gonzales said various things that were untrue in previous statements to Congress. On March 12, Gonzales said he was "not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions." But Sampson said he discussed the matter four or five times with Gonzales and kept him informed. And of course there was the Nov. 27 meeting at which Gonzales approved the firing plan. Gonzales said Sampson didn't share information within the department; Sampson said he did.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - dee
How can anyone who says I don't know or remember almost 130 times be normal and prudent as you say? This is the new defense for corruption in government, they can't remember. Our system is so f*cked up right now its getting ridiculous. Where is the truth? These government officials work on behalf of the people, not for themselves as republicans would have it, and the people deserve to know what is really going on. The system needs to be replaced before this country implodes. Sampson came across to me as someone who is to stupid to be involved in the running of the government, what if I said I don't know 130 times at my job? I wouldn't have one. The Bushies are a complete joke and those who voted for and/or still somehow support anything these guys say or do are a joke also.
2 - Daniel DiRito
The daunting ailment that has plagued those in the service of the White House continued to take its toll on the President's minions. Today, members of a congressional investigative committee continued their efforts to find the source of the ailment as it seems to be highly contagious. The most recent strains seem to be far more pervasive yet determining its origin continues to remain elusive. Senator Chuck Schumer closed his questioning by offering the hypothesis that the ailment was a virulent form of lying.
Many within the media stepped in to immediately offer the public a layman's interpretation of the symptoms as well as analysis of the ongoing implications if a cure for the ailment could not be administered soon. The White House continued to downplay the seriousness of the ailment as it sought to allay the growing fears within the American public that the disease might soon decimate the bulk of their elected officials. A growing number of pundits continued to suggest that the President is in denial as to the severity of the ailment and what it might do to the Republican Party.
See a tongue-in-cheek visual spoofing an upcoming episode of Saturday Night Live featuring a guest appearance by "The President's Prevaricators"...here: www.thoughttheater.com
3 - Sean Aqui
130 times is quite a lot; I didn't have that number when I wrote the post. But on the other hand, when you're every word is being scrutinized, it's better to be careful and cautious about what you assert.
In trials, witnesses say "I don't know" an awful lot. Which is why it's standard lawyer practice to provide documents and other evidence to jog their memory.
"Did you meet with Mr. Smith on Dec. 10?"
"I don't recall."
"Here's your calendar from Dec. 10, listing an appointment with Mr. Smith. And here's an e-mail following up on the meeting."
"Ah, yes. Now I remember."
I don't blame Sampson for being careful. Nor do I blame the senators for working hard to pin him down.
And yes, I agree he was in over his head in the job he had.
4 - moonraven
Most completely unethical people--such as Gonzales--if put under public scrutiny often enough, will put the noose around their own necks.
Gonzales is not a brighter than average unethical person like Rove, so he is wearing the noose.
Looks good on him, too.
Now the only question is: Will he be cut down, or will he be left to "twist slowly in the wind" (in the words of Richard M. Nixon)?
5 - Nancy
A pity it's not Bush, Cheney, & Rove's necks also in the noose, twisting in the wind. Let's see...Dubya has had to dump how many staffers now? I do believe the Bush administration makes even Nixon look almost honest, & his ambitions to rule small potatoes next to Dubya's megalomania.
6 - moonraven
Th main difference is that Nixon--though a crook--was a smart guy, and could see that all situations have limits.
7 - Nancy
True; Dubya is nothing if not unlimited in his capacity for stupidity, arrogance, & lies.
8 - moonraven
What I find shameful about Gonzales is that as a token Mexican, he represents the vices and not the virtues of this culture in that he is completely caught up in finding ways to get around the laws and institutions.
9 - Alec
Sean - Good analysis. Here is my problem with Sampson's claim that the firings were "legal and proper," and note that my objections would apply equally to a Democratic Party administration.
I understand that a president has the power to make appointments, even blatantly political appointments, but context is everything. In a number of key cases (the FEMA, the Supreme Court), Bush placed loyalty and cronyism above any reasonable nod to competence. Further, he refuses to learn from past errors and continues to plow ahead. Further still, the revision to the Patriot Act that eliminated the Senate's "advise and consent" role was not only foolish, but dangerous.
This president constantly makes false appeals to trust and to national security in order to justify an increasingly autocratic governing style. This president pays lip service to notions of credibility, conmpetence and professionalism, but does not appear to understand how his actions undermine the principles that he claims to be supporting.
You can't really blame Gonzales or Sampson. They are clearly following orders. Gonzales, like Sampson, needs to go. But the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, are going to have to decide whether to restore some reasonable balance between ethics and political gamesmanship.
10 - Dave Nalle
People keep saying the firings were political, but that's arrant nonsense. The administration sets its policies based on political preferences and priorities. If they choose to fire people based on those policies, that's their perogative. Anyone who comes in later and says it was political is being opportunistic or naive, because it's a given that the administration's positions on various issues are political in origin. To expect otherwise would be idiotic.
This looks like yet another case of a 'scandal' based on nothing but straw men erected by the opposition, and ironically as in the similar prosecution of Scooter Libby it looks like Gonzales stepped in and lied for no good reason and got himself in trouble.
Dave
11 - MBD
"as in the similar prosecution of Scooter Libby it looks like Gonzales stepped in and lied for no good reason and got himself in trouble."
No good reason?
Hah.
12 - Dave Nalle
I guess it depends on what you consider a good reason, MBD. There's no crime to cover up, that's abundantly clear. So the lying was petty face-saving bullshit. Weak and pointless and perhaps deserving of punishment just for that.
Dave
13 - Sisyphus
Seeing Sampson testify, was it just me, or did anyone else notice Sampson's uncanny resemblance to Radar O'Reilly from the TV series, M.A.S.H.?
:)
14 - moonraven
Failure to have balls is always a punsihable offense.
Either you are taking responsibility for living your life--or you are shoving that off on somebody else. And that´s abusive.
15 - MBD
Those in government who lie publicly are concealing something they believe is important enough to be lying about it.
Then the question becomes the intelligence of the liar.
If intelligent, they must be lying about something of importance that we should know about.
If not intelligence, why are they working as highly-paid government officials?
In either case…
16 - moonraven
They are working as highly=paid government officials because the folks in the US have permitted them to do so--and have been too lazy and too busy consuming to hold them accountable.
Or because they truly represent you folks.
Either way....
17 - MBD
"Or because they truly represent you folks."
Right now they represent about 30%.
18 - moonraven
Unfortunately, when the shit hit the fan they represented more than double that percentage.
19 - MBD
Yes, our illustrious media took care of that.
20 - jaz
lots of misrepresentation about what all this means coming from both "sides" of the Coin
much bullshit, plain and simple
it's all about placing unqualified political hacks into positions of Prosecutorial Power to further the "permanent Republican Majority" goal of this Administration in a quiet, behind the scenes coup of unprecedented proportions...
Some weren't prosecutors before... is an excellent link to an MSNBC article, outlining, sourcing and demonstrating why corrupting the theoretically impartial Justice department into hatchet men cronies with as much experience in actually Prosecuting crimes as good old "Brownie" had in disaster management.
From the linked Article - "About one-third of the nearly four dozen U.S. attorney's jobs that have changed hands since President Bush began his second term have been filled by the White House and the Justice Department with trusted administration insiders.
The people chosen as chief federal prosecutors on a temporary or permanent basis since early 2005 include 10 senior aides to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, according to an analysis of government records. Several came from the White House or other government agencies. Some lacked experience as prosecutors or had no connection to the districts in which they were sent to work, the records and biographical information show."
Have a read, and decide for yourselves...but do NOT let the spinners, shills and hacks from EITHER corrupt gang of self serving pigfuckers stuff their marketing memes into your Soul and turn you into nothing more than parroting sheeple for their political "brand name".
nuff said...