Today Attorney General Alberto Gonzales came before the Senate to testify regarding the recent, seemingly political firings of US attorneys. The hearing was a disaster (for Gonzales), he is toast and could end up resigning in the next 2-3 weeks. Not surprisingly the best part of the hearing was during Schumer’s questioning. Schumer called Gonzales on all his contradictions with the hearing of his CoS Kyle Sampson. During the hearing Gonzales told Senator Feinstein that Carol Lam, one of the US Attorneys was fully aware of the reason she was being asked to resign. Not so, according to Lam and Sampson, who told the Senate that she was not directly notified by anyone in a leadership position at the DoJ. Gonzales’ past statements, both at the hearing, and before the hearings, show that Sampson was in the center of all the action. Most of the responsibilities you would assume Gonzales to have taken on himself seemed to have been delegated out to Sampson. If Gonzales really didn’t have anything to hide, he should have blasted Sampson's testimony, and given a correct account of the reasoning & events leading up to Lam’s firing.
These are high stakes, the reputation of the DoJ and Gonzales are on the line. However, what he actually did was to refuse to comment on Sampson’s hearing. Apparently, according to Gonzales, it’s the responsibility of Congress to discuss the DoJ’s concerns with US attorneys; he kept referring back to how there was clear communication. If Gonzales really believes that, then he really isn't a good AG, it’s the DoJ’s responsibility to communicate any concerns it’s having with US attorneys regarding their performance. He lied to Feinstein as well. Carol Lam was either notified, or not notified, which means either Sampson or Gonzales lied. I think it was Gonzales, just based on his responses, he was much more defensive, he often gave vague answers.
Gonzales often would say that he could only report on what he could recall, and that he couldn’t recall certain meeting, and didn’t remember going to certain meetings. For these same meetings, Sampson testified that Gonzales was in fact at those meetings, and the two spoke about each attorney during this meeting when Gonzales essentially approved the plan to review their records in greater detail. Eevery Senator at the hearing- Sessions, Leahy, Schumer, Feinstein, etc, except maybe Orrin Hatch drew on the inconsistencies between statements made by Gonzales and Sampson, which is good, it’s probably easier to find out why these US attorneys were dismissed. Again if Gonzales was telling the truth, and there really were no political reasons for the firings, then I do not see why he didn’t say that Sampson’s testimony was wrong, and his account was correct.
From these hearings, I think Gonzales knew and is lying. There’s no way he didn’t know what was going on, at least the political reasons. He made the final decision to approve the firings. However, I do not think he was very familiar with these records, which is why he didn’t give a lot of specs about the individual cases of each attorney when asked to do so. That’s probably why he had such difficulty justifying the decision with the amount of involvement he personally had in the decision. Kennedy asked about this too, and all Gonzales said was that he didn’t know why some attorneys were fired, but he trusted Sampson’s judgment, but he also contradicted Sampson testimony when he said that Lam knew that DoJ had concerns about her policy.
Transcripts are available on MSNBC.com.
These are high stakes, the reputation of the DoJ and Gonzales are on the line. However, what he actually did was to refuse to comment on Sampson’s hearing. Apparently, according to Gonzales, it’s the responsibility of Congress to discuss the DoJ’s concerns with US attorneys; he kept referring back to how there was clear communication. If Gonzales really believes that, then he really isn't a good AG, it’s the DoJ’s responsibility to communicate any concerns it’s having with US attorneys regarding their performance. He lied to Feinstein as well. Carol Lam was either notified, or not notified, which means either Sampson or Gonzales lied. I think it was Gonzales, just based on his responses, he was much more defensive, he often gave vague answers.
Gonzales often would say that he could only report on what he could recall, and that he couldn’t recall certain meeting, and didn’t remember going to certain meetings. For these same meetings, Sampson testified that Gonzales was in fact at those meetings, and the two spoke about each attorney during this meeting when Gonzales essentially approved the plan to review their records in greater detail. Eevery Senator at the hearing- Sessions, Leahy, Schumer, Feinstein, etc, except maybe Orrin Hatch drew on the inconsistencies between statements made by Gonzales and Sampson, which is good, it’s probably easier to find out why these US attorneys were dismissed. Again if Gonzales was telling the truth, and there really were no political reasons for the firings, then I do not see why he didn’t say that Sampson’s testimony was wrong, and his account was correct.
From these hearings, I think Gonzales knew and is lying. There’s no way he didn’t know what was going on, at least the political reasons. He made the final decision to approve the firings. However, I do not think he was very familiar with these records, which is why he didn’t give a lot of specs about the individual cases of each attorney when asked to do so. That’s probably why he had such difficulty justifying the decision with the amount of involvement he personally had in the decision. Kennedy asked about this too, and all Gonzales said was that he didn’t know why some attorneys were fired, but he trusted Sampson’s judgment, but he also contradicted Sampson testimony when he said that Lam knew that DoJ had concerns about her policy.
Transcripts are available on MSNBC.com.
2 comments:
I read about some of this and have to say that I'm a bit appalled; I haven't heard a single reason as to why these attorneys were fired, and at least one of them (the one in our district), I read, was an extremely capable litigator.
I hope heads roll.
Yeah, but you should be more than a bit appalled! You mean you haven't heard any reasons at all? Or do you mean any legitimate reason from the WH?
Did you hear what Bill Richardson said about this? He was the last of the Dem candidates to call for his resignation, and when asked why he said that he was giving him a chance to explain himself, and that his ethnicity was the deciding factor for waiting so long.
You should look at the transcripts. I looked over it briefly and I was surprised when they were going case by case, Gonzales flat out said that he did not know the attorney's (for about 2-3 of the names) record in detail. I don't remember all all of the names. The reason I used Carol Lam is because she wanted to prosecute Duke Cunningham. Who is the person you're thinking of?
Post a Comment