Sampson said that he was collecting viewpoints from various administration officials about their views on particular US Attorneys but that he couldn't remember specifics and that no one issue was ever determinative. He also said whatever records or notes he kept about the process likely no longer exist.
"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."
But then...
"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.
High comedy, that.
The GOP quickly claimed that there had been a misunderstanding, and the show went on, with the "I don't remember" defense in high gear.
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.[...]
"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.
He didn't remember if he talked about the proposed firings with the President. He didn't remember if he talked about them with Rove.
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.
Not much.
Hey, it worked for Reagan.
Joseph Rich, formerly in the Justice Department's civil rights division would like to take this opportunity to pick a bone or two.
A destructive pattern of partisan political actions at the Justice Department started long before this incident, however, as those of us who worked in its civil rights division can attest.I spent more than 35 years in the department enforcing federal civil rights laws — particularly voting rights. Before leaving in 2005, I worked for attorneys general with dramatically different political philosophies — from John Mitchell to Ed Meese to Janet Reno. Regardless of the administration, the political appointees had respect for the experience and judgment of longtime civil servants.
Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed.[...]
From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.
[...]
At the same time, career staff were nearly cut out of the process of hiring lawyers. Control of hiring went to political appointees, so an applicant's fidelity to GOP interests replaced civil rights experience as the most important factor in hiring decisions.
[...]
Outright hostility to career employees who disagreed with the political appointees was evident early on. Seven career managers were removed in the civil rights division. I personally was ordered to change performance evaluations of several attorneys under my supervision. I was told to include critical comments about those whose recommendations ran counter to the political will of the administration and to improve evaluations of those who were politically favored.
Racial factor? Well, considering which way the racial groups tend to vote...
Corporate media pundits speculate as to how this will fly with Latino voters, but most often neglect to mention that Gonzalez was acting as hatchet man for ongoing Republican efforts to disenfranchise Black and Latino voters. More than any other tactic, systemic suppression of the Black and Latino vote is central to preserving a Republican majority in state and national politics.U.S. Attorneys are key to this subversion of voting rights. Under Republican administrations, they are expected to mount spurious investigations of voter registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns in Black and Latino precincts. Failure to do so - a refusal to pursue bogus cases with enthusiasm, energy, and the full weight of the federal government - can be fatal to a Republican U.S. Attorney's career, despite the fact that the GOP has turned up no credible evidence of significant voter fraud in minority communities.
[...]
In New Mexico, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, a Latino and a Republican, was marked for termination because he wasn't aggressive enough in criminalizing Democratic efforts to register voters in mostly Hispanic and Black precincts. In Arkansas, a U.S. Attorney on Gonzalez's hit list was replaced by a political operative whose claim to fame was his contribution to suppressing the Black vote in Florida. However, these and other facts of racial motivations in the scandal are assigned a low profile by Democratic leaders, even as they pretend to mount a full-court press against the Republicans.
From the K-Street Project to the Attorney Purge - it's all about takeover for a permanent GOP. They've slipped now. Will they fall?
Josh Marshall has some questions about one of the attorneys who replaced one of the ousted ones.
Back in 2000, did Patriot Act-appointed US Attorney Tim Griffin really say he makes the bullets in the war against Democrats?
TPM video here.
And remember Dan Dzwilewski? The San Diego FBI bureau chief who said Carol Lam's dismissal was definitely political and who was then warned to shut up?
Well, he just resigned.
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. There may be some delay before your comment is published. It all depends on how much time M has in the day. But please comment!