« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Well, it's finally time to hear from Kyle Sampson. You can read his opening statement for this morning's hearing here (pdf).
Josh already gave a good introduction to the central aspect of Sampson's testimony, his assertion that there's nothing wrong with "political" motivations for the firings. It's an idea Sampson most succinctly formulates here:
A U.S. Attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective, either because he or she has alienated the leadership of the Department in Washington or cannot work constructively with law enforcement or other governmental constituencies in the district important to effective leadership of the office, is unsuccessful.
The key question, of course, is how some of these U.S. attorneys managed to "alienate" Washington. Sampson denies that any of them were removed for "improper" reasons, which he defines in a lawyerly cadence as
to "interfere or influence the investigation or prosecution of a particular case for political or partisan advantage."
So why were these eight U.S. attorneys removed? How did the department establish which prosecutors were "unsuccessful?" The "process was not scientific," Sampson admits. "But neither was the process random or aribitrary." It was a "consensus-based process based on input from senior Justice Department officials." But how they arrived at that consensus, nobody knows.
For instance, here's what Sampson is expected to say about U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias, via The Washington Post:
The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said Sampson will describe the firing as the culmination of a series of complaints about Iglesias that hinged in part on three phone calls from [Sen. Pete] Domenici (R-NM) to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in 2005 and 2006 and another to Gonzales's deputy last October. Iglesias was not added to the list of prosecutors to be fired until fall.
How did those complaints lead to that consensus-based decision? And what precisely were the complaints about? It'll be interesting to hear Sampson tell the "benign story" that he says this is.
But there's more. Sampson will also give a rather unflattering portrait of his boss, Alberto Gonzales. Here's how this morning's New York Times paints that portion of his testimony:
... over time, friends and former colleagues say, Mr. Sampson noticed what three people who worked with the attorney general separately called a pattern of “imprecision” in Mr. Gonzales’s public statements....friends said Mr. Sampson could not defend the accuracy of all of Mr. Gonzales’s statements in the case like his insistence that he had no personal involvement in planning the removals or selecting prosecutors.
Justice Department records show that Mr. Gonzales discussed the removals at a meeting on Nov. 27, 2006.
Mr. Gonzales “is not a litigator, and he is not an accomplished public speaker,” said a friend of Mr. Sampson who also worked with Mr. Gonzales, known as Judge Gonzales because he was on the Texas Supreme Court. “When the judge says, ‘I wasn’t involved,’ he means something specific. If you teased it out, you would figure out what it was he meant. But in the political world where you only get one shot, it comes across as misleading.”
Your attorney general: a lawyer who even his closest advisors admit is imprecise with language.
Comments (43)
Patience wrote on March 29, 2007 9:29 AM:So... the take-home lesson is when it comes to "the judge," it depends what the meaning of "was" is?
MarkC wrote on March 29, 2007 9:29 AM:"But in the political world where you only get one shot, it comes across as misleading.”
Now we know the naked truth: Politics is unfair to liars.
Anthony wrote on March 29, 2007 9:31 AM:Imprecise! That him and george make a perfect pair. Birds of a flock, so to speak.
Anthony wrote on March 29, 2007 9:32 AM:Imprecise! I guess that makes him and george a perfect pair. Birds of a flock, so to 'speak.'LOL
za wrote on March 29, 2007 9:32 AM:who is he trying to kid???????
The "process was not scientific," Sampson admits. "But neither was the process random or aribitrary."
The process, as was clearly shown in the emails, was AFTER THE FACT. They scrambled to determine the reasons AFTER THE FIRINGS. This is quite obvious to anyone who isn't........well.................them.
ViniloSuave wrote on March 29, 2007 9:33 AM:"Imprecise" language comes out as lies or bullshit, but either form speaks power to truth,and so he Gonzales is the right man for Mr. Bush who is a master of such "imprecise" language.
Jeff S. wrote on March 29, 2007 9:35 AM:"a pattern of “imprecision” in Mr. Gonzales’s public statements."
or in vernacular English, a lying sack of ...
za wrote on March 29, 2007 9:37 AM:wow. just, wow.
"But in the political world where you only get one shot, it comes across as misleading.”
One shot? You've had countless shots. So many shots, that we've all stopped counting.
You've had frickin' BUCK-SHOT, Kyle, B-L-A-M!!!!
Thrackazog wrote on March 29, 2007 9:41 AM:and still you've consistently missed the side of the barn marked "THE TRUTH"
Ummm, how can Gonzo have been a judge on the TX Supreme Court when he has no experience with litigation? Did he go directly from law school to Bush's inner enclave? And if it's bad to be a lawyer who uses imprecise language, how much worse is it to be a state SC judge who uses imprecise language? Has anyone seen any of his rulings or opinions?
Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 9:41 AM:Imprecise, huh?
I'm betting that a slew of defendants and plantiffs who passed through the Texas Supreme Court under "the Judge's" tenure are having a long hard look at their cases once again.
This man is a walking, imprecise-talking liability.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 29, 2007 9:41 AM:Monica Mystery Update!
At the TPM Cafe, I posted details of the low-level criminal cases prosecuted by Goodling in the fall of 2004 and the details of a 2005 appeals case heard by Luttig which lists McNulty, Elston and Goodling.
And I posted Monica's resume circa December 1996!
Education
1997 - REGENT UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL(S) OF LAW AND GOVERNMENT
Joint Degree Candidate for Juris Doctor and a Masters of Public Policy
1996 - UNIVERSITY OF PARIS/ UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO SCHOOL OF LAW
Completed the Institute of International and Comparative Law in Paris, France
1996 - AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON COLLEGE OF LAW
Completed the first year of a Juris Doctor program in the top 20% of the class
1995 - MESSIAH COLLEGE
Graduated Cum Laude with a Bachelor of Arts in Speech Communications
Minors: Political Science & Chemistry
1988 - DALE CARNEGIE & ASSOCIATES
Graduated from the Dale Carnegie Course in Effective Speaking and Human Relations
More at the TPM Cafe.
RT wrote on March 29, 2007 9:44 AM:So: Gonzo isn't much of a lawyer, and lousy with words.
So what exactly IS Alberto Gonzales good at?
Maybe someone should ask Sampson that.
We know the *real* answer: he's good at doing what Bush wants him to do.
But it would be fun to see what BS Sampson came up with.
kentuck wrote on March 29, 2007 9:45 AM:I wonder if he has been assisted with his testimony by the White House in any way? If any promises have been made to him about future "opportunities"? Was he fired or did he voluntarily leave? If he was fired, why would have good things to say about everybody he worked with?
J Marra wrote on March 29, 2007 9:46 AM:Gee: Our Attorney General is 'not a litigator.' That's odd: I thought litigation is what attorneys do. Silly me, I must have missed something.
Ian wrote on March 29, 2007 9:46 AM:Honestly, this is the best guy for the job? The top of the field? The guy who should make hiring decisions about the qualified attorneys? An inarticulate and imprecise Attorney General boggles the mind. So inarticulate and imprecise that a Mormon lawyer in his 30s, with no prosecutorial experience appears to have been running the show. I know it shouldn't given what we know about this administration, but sometimes the ineptitude is simply breathtaking.
BronxInTn wrote on March 29, 2007 9:47 AM:"Imprecise" as a defense? Now how come the $5M Libby defense team did think of that one? Instead Team Libby went and failed with the Foggy Bottom foggy memory defense.
logger wrote on March 29, 2007 9:48 AM:If I recall correctly from the first document dump, Mr Battle(Head of the Executive office of the U S Attorneys) and Mr Mercer(the no 3 at Justice) were not involved the "enterprise" until late in the game. Mr. Moschella (OLA head)and Mr. McNulty(the DAG) had to be heavily briefed on the "enterprise" before they testified to Congress. The question then becomes, who besides Mr. Elston, were all these people Sampson was continously consulting to develop his "List of people to be fired"?
logger wrote on March 29, 2007 9:51 AM:If I recall correctly from the first document dump, Mr Battle(Head of the Executive office of the U S Attorneys) and Mr Mercer(the no 3 at Justice) were not involved the "enterprise" until late in the game. Mr. Moschella (OLA head)and Mr. McNulty(the DAG) had to be heavily briefed on the "enterprise" before they testified to Congress. The question then becomes, who besides Mr. Elston, were all these people Sampson was continously consulting to develop his "List of people to be fired"?
Fan of Mrs. P wrote on March 29, 2007 9:59 AM:The UNSTOPPABLE Mrs. Panstreppon found Monica Goodling's personal website from Regent University circa 1997:
http://web.archive.org/web/19990221141646/home.regent.edu/monigoo/
Among other things, it appears Monica's nickname was "Monigoo" and apparently her dad's name is Bill (putting to rest rumors that she was the offspring of former Rep. Goodling of PA).
otob wrote on March 29, 2007 10:02 AM:If I assume he'll stick to the script today, and doesn't let slip any bombshells or "I can't recalls" - then I see at least one result: this forces AGAG to take the stand and confirm that he is imprecise with language, and reveal that he was responsible for this mess. Followed or pre-empted by a resignation.
I hope they ask a lot of questions about "what did the executive branch want you to do?" Or "who told you to do it?"
edsel addams wrote on March 29, 2007 10:04 AM:I get it. If Gonzo's not a litigator then he must be a ....decider!
ShorelineCT wrote on March 29, 2007 10:05 AM:Just what were the "priorities" in the DOJ? According to the 2/06 speech that Alberto gave, voter fraud and immigration were NOT even on the radar...What happened between Feb. and Dec. when the USA's were canned (snark)?
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2006/ag_speech_060215.html
tockeyhockey wrote on March 29, 2007 10:12 AM:WASHINGTON, D.C.
February 15, 2006 - 11:00 AM
...In addition to the fight against terrorism, the Justice Department will focus on five priority areas in the coming year: violent crime, drug trafficking, cyber crime, civil rights, and public and corporate corruption. These priorities are not new; they are fundamentals indicators of the American dream. Nor is this list comprehensive. But we will work in these areas because our success is vital to the health of that dream in the 21st century....
is it me, or is sampson basically saying that attorneys who are NOT politically motivated will fail to do their jobs properly?
the bushies are amazing in their ability to twist around logic. now it seems they are arguing that the only way to be truly effective as an "independent" prosecutor is to be 100% beholden to a particular political agenda.
how do these people sleep at night? have they so bastardized the truth that they don't even know what the truth is anymore?
Laertes wrote on March 29, 2007 10:19 AM:Is it me, or did Schumer just call it "The Department of Injustice" in his opening statement?
Gotta see if the transcript keeps it in there.
dndobson wrote on March 29, 2007 10:33 AM:"In retrospect, we've should not have lied so obviously. Clearly "the judge" should have consulted with us before lying. We have our stories straight now, so please allow us one more chance at lying."
lotus wrote on March 29, 2007 10:34 AM:Mrs Panstreppon, could you please post the link to your Cafe comment? I can't spot it. Thanks.
pj in jesusland wrote on March 29, 2007 10:37 AM:Ahhh, the old "imprecise language" defense. Because if it's imprecise, it's open to interpretation, and we all know people interpret things based on their own agendas.
But what's "imprecise" about "I wasn't in the loop" when e-mails and prior testimony place Gonzalez at the center of the US attorney firings? What's "imprecise" about GOP Senators and Representatives pressuring the DOJ, and the US attorneys themselves, to announce groundless voter fraud investigations involving their Democratic opponents just days before a close election?
These GOP appointees are grasping at straws. First it was just a series of "routine" dismissals, then it morphed into "performance issues." Now Sampson is admitting that yes, indeed, the firings were political but it just wasn't explained will by an AG who has marbles in his mouth.
All the memos, testimony and public statements by the AG and others are in fact quite clear and quite contradictory. As the scandal unfolds they are trying to create moving targets, throwing smoke bombs, to give the impression the main issue involved (political manipulation of the justice process) is just a series of poorly turned phrases and all a big misunderstanding.
I call bullshit.
StClair wrote on March 29, 2007 10:39 AM:I seem to remember something in the year 2000 about how nice it will be to have adults in charge of the country.
I find Mr Sampson and Ms Goodling charming in their innocence and more than overburdened by the power and responsibilities vested in them. Ms Goodling's website is a touching glimpse into a young person on the verge of adulthood, a tragedy in the making as she is soon to be pulled into the vortex of forces far beyond her young imagination.
Perhaps she and Mr Sampson were chosen for those very qualities. And why they make such excellent sacrificial lambs for those who know better.
Having spent some time in the arrogance of the BYU worldview, I have less patience for Mr Sampson. For his sake I would wish a series of harrowing experiences sustained over a long period of time, to cleanse him of his illusions of his own importance.
Mary wrote on March 29, 2007 10:42 AM:How did Gonzales get to the TX Supreme Court? I'm from Texas: Alberto Gonzales worked for Vincent & Elkins, largest client Enron, and when Karl Rove was looking to manage campaigns for judgeships to stack with corporate reps, Gonzales assisted him in doing so. Put Gonzales directly on the Texas Supreme Court, without ever serving in any position beneath that level. And completely supported by the Bush family and the Texas Republican Party. This is a MADE man.
bill wrote on March 29, 2007 10:43 AM:Found this quote on Monigoo's old college website.
"Real leadership isn't finding out what the polls say, getting there first, and then pretending you were the leader. Leadership is dreaming great dreams, discerning noble objectives, and being willing to pay the price to see them come true".
~Senator John Ascroft
I just love it. "being willing to pay the price to see them come true" I guess by taking the 5th, she is showing us just how willing she is to pay the price to see her noble objectives (replacing usa's) come true. What a hypocrite.
DrBB wrote on March 29, 2007 10:47 AM:When the judge says, ‘I wasn’t involved,’ he means something specific. If you teased it out, you would figure out what it was he meant. But in the political world where you only get one shot, it comes across as misleading
I.e., "If we could just please get out our electron microscopes, you would see that the microns representing what he meant are on the legal side of the hair, and those that represent lying to congress and possible obstruction of justice lie on the side that he didn't mean. And honestly, through the electron microscope, it's a really thick piece of hair we're splitting here. Can't we all just please get along?"
C92 wrote on March 29, 2007 10:47 AM:I'm still not clear on who was Monica's patron. In other words, how did she get an appointment in the DOJ?
Was she a romantic interest of Senator Ashcroft's? Clearly she had a thing for him. [Did they meet when she was at Regent?]
Is she the kid of a Bush patron? [No evidence to indicate this]
The absence of her story, as Mrs. Panstreppon has pointed out, is quite curious.
djcrow22 wrote on March 29, 2007 11:00 AM:When did Monica pass the bar exam? Or did she? Anyone know about this?
C92 wrote on March 29, 2007 11:07 AM:In order to try cases in a Virginia federal court, she would have had to pass the Bar. Even if the cases were for parking tickets:
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005902.html
EH wrote on March 29, 2007 11:18 AM:"A U.S. Attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective, ..., is unsuccessful."
Nice logic there.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 29, 2007 11:24 AM:lotus@March 29, 2007 10:34 AM
Click on the url I pasted below.
If that doesn't work, here is the link:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/mrs_panstreppon/2007/mar/28/why_was_monica_goodling_prosecuting_low_level_criminal_cases_in_the_fall_of_2004
Monica's resume is posted in one of the comments following the orignal post.
HudsonPotomac wrote on March 29, 2007 11:28 AM:The likely suspect for Monica's rabbi is Kay Coles James, formerly Dean of Regent School of Government (see resume) and head of the Office of Personnel Management (the federal government's HR office) for W's entire first term.
anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 2:01 PM:"The one common link here is that three of them are along the southern border so you could make the connection that DoJ is unhappy with the immigration prosecution numbers in those districts."
Just like with Iraq, the administration goes looking for justifications for a decision already made.
How is it that there are people who just don't seem to see the pattern here?
slb wrote on March 29, 2007 2:42 PM:Thaks for the quotation from Gonzo's Feb 2006 speech, ShorelineCT!
So he said "public and corporate corruption" was one of the DOG's 5 priority items then, huh? And yet when Carol Lam pursued a public corruption case of historic proportions, she got canned for not following the administration's priorities.
I guess this was another example of Gonzo's imprecise language. Obviously what he really meant was "public and corporate corruption on the part of Democrats." Too bad for Carol Lam that she didn't manage to tease out his precise meaning. And she only got one shot...
slb wrote on March 29, 2007 2:42 PM:Thaks for the quotation from Gonzo's Feb 2006 speech, ShorelineCT!
So he said "public and corporate corruption" was one of the DOJ's 5 priority items then, huh? And yet when Carol Lam pursued a public corruption case of historic proportions, she got canned for not following the administration's priorities.
I guess this was another example of Gonzo's imprecise language. Obviously what he really meant was "public and corporate corruption on the part of Democrats." Too bad for Carol Lam that she didn't manage to tease out his precise meaning. And she only got one shot...
slb wrote on March 29, 2007 2:45 PM:(Oops -- apologies for the double-post. It appeared to hang, and I hit "Stop" and used the opportunity to fix a [Freudian?] typo, but it appears the first post had already gone through.)
mznlwpt vporqkz wrote on September 2, 2007 6:51 AM:agzmie fqpdckw cboelkr eyrn rnogdx cfhurat ucjg
epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 1:15 AM:Hi
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
Bye