Has this been mentioned?

Rebecca Sediel to Sampson, Goolding, Hertling, etc al. 1/12/07:

(re: Feinstein)

"Phone call easier, and may be easier to get out of (i.e. not trapped up there) when she doesn't get the info she wants (i.e. why they were fired)."

ouch

So, even if there was a "plan," if you simply did not keep that plan "in mind," then of course, you "did not know" and your testimony cannot be refuted.

Willful suppression. Or unconscious repression.

Take your pick!

Oh, the stench!

I take it, Kyle's lawyer is NOT one hacks from Pat Robertson's law school.

What about Mr. Griffin's from Karl Rove's office? You know, the member of the Federalist Society? That guy? Kyle had never heard of him? But, I thought Kyle said he had known about Griffin's...you know, before December...I mean, his emails from early 2006 seem to indicate he did know about the Griffin's nomination. I mean, who was his lawyer before he did that? ?

Codeword: screw

If it's the same Bradford Berenson, he's a very interesting sort of fellow:

Berenson was associate White House counsel to President Bush from January 2001 to January 2003. Now an attorney in private practice in Washington, Berenson talks about how the need for "forward-leaning" thinking that emerged in the days and months after the 9/11 attacks drove the president's advisers to give him as much power as possible to prevent other attacks. "Everybody had to assume at that time that further attacks or perhaps even worse, were planned," he explains. "And all of us were concerned with ensuring that the president had the full complement of tools and weapons at his disposal that came with his office…" Berenson, like John Yoo and some other lawyers advising the president, was a member of the Federalist Society and had clerked for U.S. Appeals Court Judge Lawrence H. Silberman. This is the edited transcript of an interview conducted on July 14, 2005.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/interviews/berenson.html

I heard this guy interviewed on BBC radio and he's scary.

"Most, if not all, had long since ceased even to be possibilities."

He should not have volunteered this. The best story (for Sampson) is that this list was created, discussed briefly, and then just drifted into oblivion. But that fact the some of the candidates ceased to be possibilities indicates that there was ongoing discussion. And that doesn't fit with Sampson's testimony.

And it's all documented in the emails - which, sadly, have been deleted.

This is not a mere quibble by Sampson's lawyer. There is a real problem with Sampson’s precise language and it has to parsed pretty carefully, at least if it going to be regarded as some sort of smoking gun.

I fully understand that he was responding to a very direct question from Senator Schumer, who referred to the date of the firings (December 7), it seems to me, as a sort of rhetorical flourish. Here was his question again:

“Did you or did you not have in mind specific replacements for the dismissed U.S. Attorneys before they were asked to resign on December 7th, 2006?”

He was not asking Sampson what his recollection was on December 7; he was asking whether Sampson had thoughts about replacements before the firings occurred on 12/7. But it seems to me that Sampson answered a very different question than the one Schumer asked. Here is what he said:

“I personally did not. On December 7th, I did not have in mind any replacements for any of the seven who were asked to resign.”

The first sentence, read by itself, sounds to be a complete falsehood, in light of the email evidence. But the “on December 7th” language in the second sentence can arguably be read (with a straight face) as clearly stating that he was describing his state of mind on 12/7, and not before 12/7, as Schumer had asked. This is pretty much the argument you discuss in your post.

Worse, it can be argued (again, with a straight face) that his answer implies that he didn't understand Schumer's question. They will get to that argument by tomorrow, unless they are completely brain-dead. The second argument is a lot better than the first because it suggests that the questioner and witness were talking past each other and therefore -- hey -- how can you expect to make sense of an exchange where the answer does not correspond to the question. One could argue, I suppose, that his answer was therefore unresponsive. But even Schumer would probably agree that that is pretty thin soup for a perjury prosecution.

I don't mean to suggest that there was in fact any misunderstanding going on. There is really nothing wrong with Schumer's question, and the answer sounds completely canned: I'm sure that this was the response agreed upon to any questions about what anybody was thinking about replacements before the date of the firings. But by answering the question with this statement about his state of mind on December 7, he has muddied the waters pretty good at least from a prosecutorial standpoint.

As far as the politics is concerned, it's an obvious lie, pure and simple. And Kyle is going to have a very unpleasant repeat visit with Senator Schumer real soon.

That was what I was expecting to hear from his lawyer: an issue over semantics, length of time between the memo and the specified date, and an woefully-incomplete-but-truthful answer.

Though considering that at least a few of the names on the memo apparently made it to the final list, his statement seems more like a lie than a half-truth.

These guys are making OJ Simpson look a Nobel Peace Prize winner....

Theo--I agree. But Leahy and Schumer realistically need an indictable witness to move things along. Maybe Goodling is already the designated one.

From: Burton;Faith----- Original Message-----
From: Hertling, Richard
To: Burton, Faith
Sent: Mon Mar 05 15:48:29 2007
Subject: Re: URGENT
What is the correct response if at the US Attorney hearing tomorrow Will is asked by HJC
to provide emails and other communications we had with the WH on firing US Attorneys?
To: Hertling, Richard
Sent: Mon Mar 05 16:03:43 2007
Sub j ec t : Re : URGENT
We would not provide such highly deliberative docs in which the WH has such significant
equities - no way would the WH allow that. Need to think about how exactly to phrase the
response but Will may have some thoughts.
busted!!!!!!!!

The contradiction is a stretch. It's probably not enough to warrant a prosecution. A good lawyer would be able to get him out of this.

I think this is a case of Sampson being hung by his tendencies as a lawyer.

Any decent lawyer preping a witness will explain to them that it often is not a good idea to answer a question with a simple "yes" or "no." By answering with a simple yes or no, you adopt all of the premises contained within the question.

Here Schumer asked:

"Did you or did you not have in mind SPECIFIC replacements for the dismissed U.S. Attorneys before they were asked to resign on December 7th, 2006.”

If Sampson answere with a blanket no his attorney's story makes sense. Schumer asked about specific replacements. A no answer to that question could leave the possibility that he has some replacements in mind, but that the suggested replacements were not specific.

Sampson didn't answer with a simple no, instead he said:

"I personally did not. I did not have in mind any replacements for any of the seven who were asked to resign.”

Clearly, Sampson, in answering that he did not have ANY replacements in mind, was lying.

Schumer could have done a better follow up:

"At anytime prior to December 7, 2006, did you have in mind or were you considering specific replacements."

Which likely would have gotten one of Sampson's "I don't recall."

But Sampson's response above has just enough wiggle room to avoid a lying to Congress job.

Was Kyle lying in the response? Of course. They didn't have pretty clear ideas of who they wanted slotted into jobs. Admitting that really wouldn't have been harmful. It's always amazing when people in the Admin lie when they don't really have to.

jdw--You got that right.

Regarding nrglaw's comments on the parsing...

Let us have a look at the law on lying to Congress, 18 U.S.C. 1001.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001001----000-.html

It talks about anyone who "falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact." Note the word "trick."

If you are asked one question (did you have this in mind before 12/7) and you answer another question (did you have this in mind on 12/7) in order to trick Congress, you are guilty of violating section 1001.

The U.S. Attorney Manual states, "A statement is false for purposes of this statute even if it is a technically true statement, but it is knowingly put to a false use." In one case cited there, the court found that answering a question about the nature of a fee with a truthful answer about what the records show about that fee could still be a violation of 1001 if the answer was intended to avoid the real question.

I love section 1001. It sent away Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart. It would have taken away Caspar Weinberger if he had not been pardoned by Bush I.

Has the White House "counseled" the main stream media to continuously focus on Imus instead of their lies? Makes ya wonder don't it?

Holy shit! McClatchy has a story out about the U.S. attorney in Wisconsin who went after the Democrat on trumped up charges. Anyway, he was going to be removed but was given a reprieve "for reasons that remain unclear". Uh, you don't have to be a genius to see why he was given a reprieve. He pursued a case that would make Nifong proud, a case that was overturned by an appeals court that was astonished it was pursued to begin with.

Let me clense the palate. All the talk about Sgt, Pepper and Pet Sounds over the years. Listen to Paul and Artie's "Bookends." It describes your American experience to a T.
Starting at depressed it culminates in angry.
A "Hazy Shade Of Winter" is our fortune, and with all due respect, the jew boys got it right.

US Atty who filed the bogus charge NOT being fired (after being threatened with firing?) is the smoking gun.

Re Richard Matthews' post:

You make a very valid point, but I think it cuts Sampson's way more so than it does for the prosecutor.

My take is that the magic word in the Technical Manual is "knowingly." I would, for sure, rather be defense counsel with a burden of showing reasonable doubt about Sampson's intent. The prosecutor would have to show either that the comments were "knowingly" false, or that even if true, the truth was used knowingly as a misdirection. That is a tough case to make.

There is help from Sampson's opening statement, however, which includes the following:

“[N]one of the U.S. attorneys was asked to resign in favor of a particular individual who had already been identified to take the vacant spot.”

This statement is also very narrow--the little weasel limits his assertion to "particular individuals who had already been identified..." So, is that statement perjury? I'm still not sure. You can say that it definitely starts to get into the land of statements that are too cute by half. You can say that this witness was very carefully prepped on this area. But the wise bet, I think, is to see these statements for half-truths and trust that Schumer will know what has to be done to firm up the record.

This story is ridiculous. This email was released 3/13/07 and showed a field for "replacement candidates." OAG000021. The only news is that the version released yesterday reveals the names of the replacement candidates. Hardly a smoking gun or a brilliant find by the Times.

There is a possiblity none of us have considered yet . . .

Sampson could be a mindless drone, a clone of K. Rove(r), controlled remotely by Darth Cheney . . . Therefore incapable of having anything in mind on or before 12/07/06 . . . So his testimony would be factually correct and as a husk he coulda physically done practically anything.

We are living ing Bush-world after all.

Fitzgerald re-open the Rove/Libby/Plame case????

Just saw this in case anyone is interested or is following this.... "CREW Writes Patrick Fitzgerald Asking to Re-Open Rove Case in Light of Missing Emails" CREW being Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Press release here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070413/pl_usnw/crew_writes_patrick_fitzgerald_asking_to_re_open_rove_case_in_light_of_missing_emails;_ylt=A0SOwlXa4yBGqH8BwAIEKekE

Enjoy!

According to Newsweek, life is going to get even more interesting in the DOJ, with Cheney protege ,Courtney Elwood a new player in stalling congressional oversight. In case she is lonely in the DOJ ,her husband John Elwood is deputy assistant Attorney General. Who says Cheney has not got a sense of humor.