Sampson To Set Off Fireworks By Saying That GONZALES WAS TOTALLY IN THE LOOP (US News)

Former Top Justice Official to Contradict Gonzales Statements
By Chitra Ragavan
Posted 3/26/07

.......... But Sampson will set off some fireworks by contradicting a key assurance that Gonzales made to Congress and the American public last Tuesday that he was not in the loop during the long deliberations leading up to the firings.

Gonzales probably spoke to Sampson 20 times a day, and had a morning management meeting daily on a range of issues with Sampson and other key officials also involved in the U.S. Attorney deliberations. Gonzales had delegated the replacement plan for U.S. Attorneys largely to Sampson and was monitoring it at "the 30,000 feet level," Sampson's associate says. But Sampson will testify that the Attorney General not only discussed the idea while he was still White House counsel and signed off at the end, but also was "aware of the arc of the whole process" in between, says this source. "The idea that there were no discussions on this overall issue," says the source, "the Attorney General could not have meant to say that."

While Sampson's testimony won't implicate White House officials, it won't rule out their involvement - including Rove's - in the selection of the fired U.S. Attorneys either. In fact, it will only give Democrats in Congress new fodder to demand the testimony under oath of Rove and other key Bush officials, something Bush has so far said he won't tolerate, citing executive privilege. Sampson is likely to testify that although he exchanged E-mails and had discussions with then-White House counsel Harriet Miers and her deputy William Kelley, what happened "behind the curtains," in the White House, was largely invisible to him.


more at:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070326/26sampson.htm

a scapegoat.

:popcorn:

:applause:

:popcorn:

i had another thread------but this fits here also.


Forum Name General Discussion: Politics
Topic subject Justice Spokesman: Gonzales 'Extremely Upset' by McNulty Testimony
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3183565#3183565
3183565,

Justice Spokesman: Gonzales 'Extremely Upset' by McNulty Testimony
Posted by rodeodance on Mon Mar-26-07 10:18 PM

te he



(Page 4 of 4)

Justice Spokesman: Gonzales 'Extremely Upset' by McNulty Testimony

But Gonzales, who was in South America that day, was furious when he read news stories about McNulty's testimony. "The attorney general is extremely upset with the stories on the US attys this morning," wrote Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman, in an e-mail to Sampson and Tasia Scolinos, the chief spokeswoman for the department. "He also thought some of the DAG's statements were inaccurate." Scolinos responded to the e-mail that she, too, "didn't think the hearing had gone all that well." Roehrkasse suggested in his e-mail that the department offer a "clearly worded op-ed" and reach out "to boards who will write in coming days" to help straighten out the situation. Gonzales then wrote an editorial that ran in USA Today in which he tried to reconcile McNulty's testimony with his own and to make clear that McNulty's "performance-related" phrase should not be interpreted to mean a negative or inadequate performance by the attorneys. "To be clear, it was for reasons related to policy, priorities and management — what have been referred to broadly as "performance-related" reasons — that seven U.S. attorneys were asked to resign last December," Gonzales wrote. But it was too late. The U.S. attorneys who had initially told the administration they would quietly resign began to speak out publicly and defend themselves. "He had to defend his reputation," Kyl said of Charlton. "So did the rest of them." At Schumer's insistence, McNulty went back to Capitol Hill Feb. 14, to meet privately with the Judiciary Committee and provide more information on each firing. But his carefully crafted responses — trying to give minimal information without disclosing much, left senators on both sides of the aisle either angry or frustrated, and according to those with knowledge of the meeting, only fanned the flames of the growing firestorm. A source close to McNulty said the deputy attorney general believes has Gonzales' full confidence. McNulty is "upset" with Sampson's preparation and believed he was not fully briefed on the creation of plan to fire the U.S. attorneys, the source. McNulty believes Sampson will have to explain that directly to senators when Sampson testifies Thursday, the source said.

* Related: E-mail Exchange About the Dismissals


«PREVIOUS 1. 2. 3. 4.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2983066&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real."

Is her lawyer saying that, aside from taking the Fifth, she has the option of providing something other than truthful and accurate testimony? It strikes me as a very odd and, perhaps, unintentionally revealing remark.

....that she actually engaged in criminal activity? That even if she tells the truth, she will be describing her own criminal activity?

... congress needs to fight back with something like this

"up until now we were concerned about ethical lapses. In light of the refusal to testify, we have to now assume that there is the possibility of criminal activity. We'll have to take the appropriate steps."

charge that Bush/Rove cued up. I sure hope the Committee as a whole puts some weedkiller on that seed, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Supposedly, the Cons are going to let Specter take the lead (IIRC that's what Newsweek's Howard Fineman 'reported' yesterday) and play a bad cop/good cop routine. No doubt Hatch, Cornyn and Sessions are getting absolutely giddy over acting their roles, too!

has a sudden illness soon... the man should avoid flying too... given this bunch, he should probably avoid breathing

for the days of secrecy. There's plenty of time to turn him into another Paul O'Neill.

Jay

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Official Ignored White House Guidance
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x510581#510581
510581, EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Official Ignored White House Guidance
Posted by cal04 on Mon Mar-26-07 09:16 PM

Testimony Contradicted Gonzales in U.S. Attorney Matter, Sparked Controversy

The firestorm over the fired U.S. attorneys was sparked last month when a top Justice Department official ignored guidance from the White House and rejected advice from senior administration lawyers over his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee

The official, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, ignored White House Counsel Harriet Miers and senior lawyers in the Justice Department when he told the committee last month of specific reasons why the administration fired seven U.S. attorneys — and appeared to acknowledge for the first time that politics was behind one dismissal. McNulty's testimony directly conflicted with the approach Miers advised, according to an unreleased internal White House e-mail described to ABC News. According to that e-mail, sources said, Miers said the administration should take the firm position that it would not comment on personnel issues.

Until McNulty's testimony, administration officials had consistently refused to publicly say why specific attorneys were dismissed and insisted that the White House had complete authority to replace them. That was Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' approach when he testified before the committee in January.

But McNulty, who worked on Capitol Hill 12 years, believed he had little choice but to more fully discuss the circumstances of the attorneys' firings, according to a a senior Justice Department official familiar the circumstances. McNulty believed the senators would demand additional information, and he was confident he could draw on a long relationship with New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, in explaining in more detail, sources told ABC News.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2983066&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Sampson has his chance on Thursday.

Please, Kyle, spill your guts. I've waited for so long for someone to pull the mask of this monstrosity. Throw them all under the bus to save your fat ass. It's all about you, baby!

This administration has proven they expect total loyalty yet return trust with betrayal. The bodies are already stacked high and anyone who might be stupid enough to defend them deserves whatever they get.

p r o n t o ! ! !

:popcorn:

(I finally got full . . . for one night.)

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

"Sampson's sure to be asked about what exactly Domenici said to Gonzales during those phone calls. His answers could not only challenge Gonzales's assertion that no politics were involved in these firings but also force Congress to look through the looking glass and trigger a tawdry sequel to what's already proved to be a most entertaining Alice in Wonderland tale."


i don't think i would have characterized it quite that way: "entertaining alice in wonderland tale"!

Wow. This is some HEAVY stuff.

and I think they are going to at least censure him

applicable exception to the hearsay rule

:rofl:

it looks like Thursday is going to be very interesting!

only a few plaintive peeps out of them.

Instead, they take swipe after swipe at Pelosi.

(from a thread yesterday: Thank you higher class
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=508532&mesg_id=509402)


This lawyer worked on the theft of the election in 2000 and then he worked on covering up the cheating results (with the help of the Boards of Directors of the newspapers who did their dirty part).

We're not going to get anything out of Bramson. That lawyer is there to protect Cheney #1, Bush #2, and Gonzales #3.

Bungling, indeed.

Do you feel the wool coming down over your eyes?

It appears he may have also been on the team to set up the torture parameters? What else could they mean by 'military commissions' that startled the top rungs of operatives.

It's becoming more obvious that the pretend game that put Cheney in there to run things with a maleable mind who only needed a certain number of perks and rewards to get out their and fundraise and play-act providing he (George) also had his own team around him.

I'm sure the Cheney team is disgusted with the Bush team - Miers, Gonzales, and Rice. It's obvious that this is who they think bungled and now they have to have hidden faces out front.

This is going to be a MEET THY ENEMY Thursday.

...as a meek and innocent participant caught up in an evil whirlpool of congressional sharks in a feeding frenzy: "The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said the lawyer, John Dowd.

Give me a break! She is part of this whole thing and needs to be brought before the congressional hearing and the American people to state all that she knows and answer clearly, openly and fully all questions which the hearing panel have. If she takes the 5th, then that is her constitutional right, but let her do so on the record, before the hearing panel and the cameras.

i still don't get what all the fuss is about. So some attorneys got fired for political reason. You don't think that doesn't happen EVERY DAY around the world? Please. This is SO much ado about nothing

:nopity:

--IMM

There's much to learn.

THAT is a no-no in a corrupt administration. THAT is why they were fired.

... but just a refrigerator bulb in the 100 watt bin of life.

to everybody else then of course it's okay if our government is corrupt, our officials take bribes, and we torture suspects in custody. This is the U.S. and we have a higher standard. Gonzales lied. The Attorney General lied. You don't see a problem with that? Gee, how surprising.

want to look up the word "subtle". It could extend your stay at DU to at least 20 posts. :hi:

It clearly knows nothing & it needs to learn.

The issue isn't simply firing. Legally the President can fire all the AG's every day if he wants. The problem is however, if the firings are due to the investigations or types of investigations they are doing. That would be obstruction of justice which is illegal.

So if there were conversations about the AG's investigations or types of investigations in relation to their dismissal, laws were broken. If the discussions were of any other nature, job performance, didn't like the way they looked, bad breath, etc. they would not have broken the law by firing them and there would be nothing to see here.

In the end it adds to the already well painted picture of a poorly run operation where politic's continue's to be more important than results.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just looking for trouble.

This issue has been discussed extensively over the last couple of weeks. Read any of several hundred posts and news articles on the matter, and you might start to get a picture of why this issue has legs. A simple for instance: Karl Rove mentioned 11 critical states for the 2008 election in a recent speech. Now we find out that the replaced US attorneys cover 8 of those 11 states. Of course this could be coincidence, but I'm afraid that Rove and company are long past any reasonable doubt, so yes, this must be investigated.

As the subject says, do some bg work and get the easy answers to "simple questions" before you ask, and you'll find the reception a bit less hostile.

A lot of people have been involved in politics likely a lot longer than you have been alive. Try not acting like and "agent provocateur" and you won't get pissed on.

perhaps you should check them out. There are a whole bunch of political sites. I think you should visit all of them until you find the one that most suits you.

The Cheney family is fond of saying things like "Go ---- yourself".

And yes, it is illegal to lie to Congress (which it appears that Gonzalez and the whole Bushie bunch is guilty of). But you should already know that, as Clinton was impeached for same.

usually, you're supposed to try to blend in first. You're not blending.

:)

albeit it is quite telling.
Dude this story is HUGH11!!!!
We going to watch the morans get got, you know?

Maybe in some unfree countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran.

And give you a brief explanation.

Yes, the USAs are political appointments in that the jobs are handed out as political "thank you's" to -- well, whomever (same-party members of the state's Congressional delegation often has recommendations which are given weight).

But they take an oath to SERVE in a completely apolitical and non-partisan manner. After all, "justice" is supposed to be meted out the same for everyone, not more leniently for members of the party in power and less leniently for those out of power.

The evidence in this case, however circumstantial (and remember: people are given the death penalty based on circumstantial evidence), shows that there were most surely partisan reasons for those dismissals, and the fact that midterm dismissals and reappointments haven't happened for other than pretty significant CAUSE in the past, AND that the AG had an amazing new freedom thanks to the Patriot Act's provisions which avoid Senate confirmation all support that conclusion.

If it ain't blue, get the hell out!

If it ain't blue, get the hell out!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

be a footnote in history, an insignificant smudge on the history of this Country. I will defend the inherent right to have a Justice Dept free of politics. This WH wants to have complete control over the handling of Justice in this country, and Dubya simply doesn't have that right. He doesn't have the right to lie to the American people or to Congress. If it wasn't such a big deal, then why lie when asked any question about what happened? Do honest people doing simple every day running of a department lie about everything they are asked, or do they step up to the plate and say, "Yes, that's what I did?". Think about that a bit. Why do they need to lie if this is no big deal? Hmmmm?

because politicians lie to each other all the time. It's what they do. It's their nature. On March 26 in Des Moines Iowa Hillary Clinton said if she wins the election she would replace all of the U.S. attorneys appointed by President Bush. That's ok though, right?

any USA because he refused to prosecute Republicans? Did she say that she'd remove any USA that looked a little too closely into any Dem scandal? Did she say that she'd seek to put a political aide into the USA slot? Did she say that she's slip a little piece of law into the Patriot Act to allow her to place all these USAs without Senate approval, thus making Congress just that much more irrelevent? Did she say that she'd put in only loyal Clintonistas regardless of their ability to perform the job?

you DID read the name of the website, right?

US Attorneys are replaced at the beginning of a presidential term. But firing a bunch afterwards is unprecedented.

Watergate began as a minor burglary.

How can you say it's no big deal?

Your bias is showing. I still say you're a Cheney. You better follow a low-fat diet and get lots of exercise, as heart disease is hereditary.

It's standard operating procedure in recent presidential history for an incoming president to replace the roster of federal attorneys at the time the president arrives in office. That's normal, and the attorneys understand that. It's not normal for a president to fire a select few attorneys long after his term of office has already begun, shortly before midterm elections, and for nakedly political reasons, such as a) not pursuing charges against the president's political enemies or b) actually pursuing charges against the president's political allies (ie. the U.S. attorney in Guam who was investigating Jack Abramoff).

And "politicians lie to each other all the time." So what has Bush lied about?

I'm all eyes...

Simply saying that they all lie does not make the issue go away.

Ans since you have seemed to miss the point several time here it is again.

It is not improper for the President to remove all the USA's at the same time, for gross misconduct, or at the beginning of a new term. What is in question is why these attorneys were fired since they were doing their jobs. If they were being removed so that new Bush sanctioned attorneys could influence the political spectrum then that is wrong.

It would be like you firing an employee that was doing a good job keeping the books up to date and replacing him/her with a politically motivated one that was going to cook the books for you.

I think I can safely speak for "we people" in saying that this has very little to do with hatred for President Bush and ALL about a deep sense of love and loyalty to the United States of America and the Constitution.

The firings of the attorneys wouldn't be a big deal had it not been done secretly and using the loophole in the Patriot Act which by passes Congressional approval of replacements. It's about checks and balances. It's about balance of power and it's about the COVER UP.

They always get ya with the cover-up. Just ask fall guy Scooter Libby! Take a look in your history books and read up on Watergate!

I'm sure after the few posts I've read of yours that you were one of those people saying the illegal wiretapping of US citizens was also no big deal. After all, if you've got nothing to hide, what's the problem, right? Well, if this is no big deal, why not testify about it under oath? After all, if they've got nothing to hide, what's the problem, right?

:evilgrin:

Curious; are you suggesting that the firings of the USAs was unconstitutional? If so; how were the firings unconstitutional? Can you state a specific line in the constitution that was violated? If not; then what is all of this about?

Please help me to understand your perspective.

Welcome to DU

Edited to add, perhaps this should say welcome BACK to DU

:eyes:

I did not intent to put words in to anyone's mouth. That is why I asked if that was what she was trying to suggest given that she stated that here concerns over this issue are being driven by her love for the constitution rather than hatred for Bush. An easy assumption for one to make, don’t you think?

Just asking for clarification and it was provided, although to a limited degree.

The firing of competent and talented USAs mid-term and while they are pursuing high profile cases unfavorable to Republicans is not only unprecedented, but it may well constitute obstruction of justice.

That is why Gonzo already lied, and it is why no one in the administration wants to testify under oath.

A Republican congress once rabidly pursued oversight of a decade-old land deal and an account of a blow job. Neither of which had anything to do with running the country.

Now a Democratic congress is pursuing oversight on issues that directly affect millions of Americans such as the deliberate fabrication of evidence for the sake of illegally invading a sovereign nation, the interference with ongoing investigations into congressional corruption, the compromise of a national security asset resposible for tracking weapons of mass destruction, and that's just to name a few.

I know who the hypocrites are, and right now, they ain't most Dems.

I think I wrote you a letter just a little while ago too;

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Dr_eldritch/15

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. I can't for the life of me understand how you can jump to the conclusion that I am either of the types you mention in the title of your journal.

That aside; you state that the individuals fired were competent and talented. Well pardon me if I consider that to be your opinion and potentially less of a fact. Also, if they were pursuing high profile cases unfavorable to Republicans, then I ask you; what cases? As for your obstruction of justice charge, well I hate to rain on your parade but if the current administration should be accused of such then perhaps we should revisit the actions of previous administrations.

Now, I have one additional question; who do you suggest fabricated the evidence to invade a sovereign nation? If I am not mistaken the evidence you refer to is the very same evidence used by the previous administration. So, logically you are suggesting that the previous administration fabricated the evidence and it is them that are at fault. However; I suspect that you do not believe that, I mean it was common knowledge that the evidence was well briefed on the Hill prior to the current administration, but what we can conclude is that the evidence was faulty and that neither administration was at fault for this. Instead we can surmise that the intelligence community was at fault.

Hypocrites not being Democrats: well that's a matter of perspective now isn't it? Let’s be realistic here. You make that statement much like a Notre Dame Fighting Irish football fan states that the Michigan Wolverines football teams stinks. You know that is not true and that when it comes right down to it they are all pretty much hypocrites, but to say that one party is not as hypocritical as the other is just naive.

Anyway, have a nice day.

I think I'll use the "ignore" button for the first time.

to be as gullible as they are.

Has no one else alerted but me?

Ignore is pretty cool, though. Never used it before: I'm a bit low on patience today.

the ones on this shift might be on west coast time.

:shrug:

No one is disputing his right to do that. It is the unprecedented firing of 8 of his own appointees, well into his second term, that caught everyone's attention. And apparently with good reason, as more and more information continues to dribble out.

In a way I agree with you. Lying to get us into a war that has cost us thousands of lives and innocent Iraqis hundreds of thousands of lives, losing billions of our tax dollars, not to mention allowing our soldiers to be put in harms way with inferior armor, actually *does* seem worse than this scandal.

This scandal just seems to be the timely one, what with the hearings and all. In general, also, lying is not a *good* thing. Changing prosecutors in the middle of investigations, for the purpose of disrupting them is obstruction of justice.

Still, you make a good point that the Iraq War scandals are much worse.

not wild-eyed left-wing loonies, like you think populate this community.

These were mid-term firings, most unusual, and the 'reason' for dismissal was given as poor performance-- complete BS given that several were ranked in the top ten of all US attorneys for succesful prosecutions. Has that ever happened to you? These GOP attorneys (still loyal Republicans, BTW) are the ones coming forward and asking for APOLOGIES from your Dear Leader, for trashing their resumes.

he's MY dear leader. don't say they're MY guys. i think he's a jackass too and basically i don't give a sh** whether he fired those attorneys or not, or why, or who lied to who about it. It just ain't that big a deal. Ask Janet Reno. She was saying the same thing. i just think there are bigger fish to fry, and this is a huge waste of time and effort that'll go no where. Not terribly productive is all.

Holding our government accountable for lying and subverting the Constitution is an essential part of being an American.

still fooling no one, btw.

ANY of the facts surrounding this. But I doubt she said it. You wanna prove me wrong? Hint: links, please.

US Attorneys are ALWAYS confirmed by the Senate, but they snuck a provision into Patriot 2 which allows them to subvert this, hence the firings. There is no accountability.

Not that I'm suprised or anything that you didn't know this. But thanks for your "concern". :nopity:

I believe I will take a bit of time to de-construct this short, lame collection of notions:

"You People" - the phrase casts a pretty broad net, don't you think?

"Hatred of Bush" - this is a canard, a misdirection having nothing to do with the case at hand.

"(if you ever had that ability to begin with)." - gratuitous insult.

"no one has ever given a fu** about the job security of a US attorney" - before this, only 10 USAs were ever relieved of duty in midstream, most of those for cause.

"Democrats want US attorneys to pursue Democrat goals, and Republics want US attorneys to pursue Republic goals." - I guess you weren't paying attention, as this is precisely the opposite of true.

Well, I have now wasted 5 very good minutes.

My advice to you: I, and most of the members of this establishment, read about a thousand posts for every post we make, thus educating ourselves about issues. Perhaps you would benefit from the same behavior.

Here at DU, we require our trolls to be sharp and biting and intellectually coherent, and you just don't make the grade.

1) Sampson's testimony drives the last nail in Gonzo's coffin.
2) Congress is gone next week.
3) Gonzo "retires" on Tuesday.
4) Bush recess-appoints another crony to the AG slot Wednesday to serve at his pleasure for the remainder of his term.

your points number 3 and 4 prove my point that this will blow over with Gonzo canned, a new puppet put in, and all this is/was a HUGE waste of time and effort. What a bunch of wheel spinning this is.

Sunshine is the best antidote to authoritarian tendencies in gov't. This puts a brigher light on what these buffoons are doing and increases both public and media pressure for them to get that what they want is not the sine qua non.
The Professor

Contrary to wingnut bloviations trying to diminish it. Granted, this is one scandal among many, but the cumulative effect is that Americans will register their disgust with the current Maladministration's incompetence, corruption, and greed in November 2008. They did so during the mid-terms and I predict they will again (barring an OBL video release two days before the election...terra!). A new puppet may be put in, but he/she will no longer be able to do an end-run around the Constitution by allowing the AG to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. Isn't this what our Founding Fathers wanted--checks and balances and limits on power? I know, how "quaint."

The new "puppet" will be without fangs. The bright light shed by this pursuit will render any replacement powerless to carry out any imperial presidency machinations. Ridding the country of its chaff is never a worthless pursuit.
The Professor

"Sunshine is the best antidote to authoritarian tendencies in government." It's pretty fascinating to watch all of this unfold--the battle between those who want authoritarianism/imperialism and those of us who resist. And to think I was once one of those "in the middle"; a recent quiz put me left of Gandhi and bordering on anarchy. Off the charts is where I think I'll end up if we have another R for Prez!

:hi:

I hope he tries it. It will just kick this "little" issue into an even higher gear.

It's BBQ time!

Seems the junta overlooked something important about hiring people without ethics. When push comes to shove, not all loyalists are willing to take the rap. When 'me firsters' get all the swell jobs, there is bound to be some friction in the ranks.

:rofl: the rats are EATING the ship now!

I wouldn't count any chickens until they are coughed up in front of Congress.

Berenson, Kyle's attny, is also the attny for Ralston (Rove's assistant) and a CCD Citizens for a Common Defense frontman. What is behind a lot of this is the hiding of the GOP's CIA moneysupply. See post #28 and 29. BTW, Goodling's attny John Dowd is a moneylaundering/whitecollarcrime defense expert. Maybe that's why the WH wanted her to hire him in case she slipped up if she were forced to testify.

that Gonzales, a dead man walking anyway, may have been in the loop in decisions about USA firings is not a bombshell. No big deal...you would expect him to know about it. And his claim not to have been in the loop can be interpreted many ways...he can easily wiggle away from having to say he was lying.

We've seen a hundred times some sort of acknowledgement of a mistake that actually lets off steam while protecting higher ups. Exactly what this leak of Sampsons testimony is doing.

Now if he says that Rove or Bush were involved...then we have news.