Sampson Under Oath: Gonzales Lied

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/29/sampson-schumer/

Sampson Under Oath: Gonzales Lied

In a press conference on March 13, 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales attributed the administration’s conflicting stories on the attorney purge to his claim that information had not been shared throughout the department. Gonzales specifically faulted his chief of staff Kyle Sampson for not properly informing Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General William Moschella prior to their testimonies before Congress. Gonzales said:

I regret the fact that information was inadequately shared with individuals within the department of Justice and that consequently information was shared with the Congress that was incomplete. But the charge for the chief of staff here was to drive this process and the mistake that occurred here was that information that he had was not shared with individuals within the department who was then going to be providing testimony and information to the Congress.

In their testimonies, McNulty and Moschella attempted to downplay White House involvement or coordination in the attorney firings.

Today, under questioning from Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sampson said, under oath, that he “shared information with anyone who wanted it.” Specifically, Sampson said he did share information with McNulty and Moschella prior to their testimonies before Congress. Schumer responded: “So the Attorney General’s statement is wrong, is false. How could it not be?” Sampson froze. Ultimately, he acknowledged Gonzales’s statement is “not accurate.” Watch it at link:

Digg It!

UPDATE: Here are the testimonies of McNulty and Moschella claiming ignorance of White House involvement in the attorneys purge.

CONYERS: Well, was anyone at the White House consulted or did they offer any input in compiling the list of U.S. attorneys to be terminated, to the best of your knowledge?
MOSCHELLA: The list was complied at the Department of Justice.
CONYERS: Was the White House consulted?
MOSCHELLA: Well, eventually, because these are political appointees which is unremarkable, send a list to the White House, let them know.

SCHUMER: Was the White House involved in any way?
MCNULTY: These are presidential appointments.
SCHUMER: Exactly.
MCNULTY: So the White House personnel I’m sure was consulted prior to making the phone calls.

Transcript:

SCHUMER: At the same press conference the Attorney General also said the charge for the chief of staff was to drive this process and the mistake that occurred here was that information that he had was not shared with individuals within the department who then were going to be providing testimony and information to congress.

The Attorney General was referring to you as his chief of staff correct?

SAMPSON: Yes.

SCHUMER: Was that an accurate state that he made?

SAMPSON: Senator I, uh, believe that at no time did I intend to mislead the congress or mislead witnesses that were coming before congress. I think we mishandled the preparation for Mr. McNulty’s testimony.

SCHUMER: Sir, I’m going to interrupt you, I’m trying to just get yes or no questions. He said that information that Carl Sampson had was not shared with individuals within the department. Is that true or false?

SAMPSON: Senator, I shared information with anyone who wanted it. I was very open with Mr. open and collaborative in the process. In the preparation for Mr. McNulty and Mr. Moschella’s testimony ….

SCHUMER: That’s what I want to ask, did you share information with Mr. McNulty with Mr. Moschella?

SAMPSON: I did.

SCHUMER: So the attorney general’s statement is wrong. It’s false.
How can it not be?

If you shared information with Mr. McNulty and Mr. Moschella and the Attorney General is saying it was not shared with individuals in the department or where providing statements to Moschella and McNulty, his statement is false. Is that correct?

SAMPSON: Senator, as I look back on that process, the problem was that we were focused on other questions.

SCHUMER: Understand.

SAMPSON: But I think that any information that I didn’t provide….

SCHUMER: Forget it, time is limited, the statement is false correct?
THe statement is false, there is no way to believe it’s not.

SAMPSON: I don’t think it’s accurate….

SCHUMER: Okay, we’ll leave it at that… It’s not accurate

SAMPSON: …if the statement implies that I intentionally withheld any information.

SCHUMER: I’m not asking intent, I’m just asking whether it was false, and you said it was inaccurate.

[Richard Steele]

1. Rec-rec-recommended!

[Canuckistanian]

2. Let the games begin!

Finally, someone under oath putting the finger on Gonzales.

[jojo54]

3. Was that when Cornyn did us the dishonor by opening his mouth?

I could have reached into my tv screen and slapped the crap out of him for interupting the way he did. What an ass!

BTW: recommended!

[SusanaMontana41]

7. Oh god me too

Behaving as if he's Sampson's attorney. Few in Congress deserve more contempt than Cornyn, imho.

[Elidor]

4. CRUNCH

Thank you, Mr. Sampson. Your career as a GOP hack is now over. These nice people will show you to the door.

Yesterday, a portion of Sampson's prepared remarks to the Committee was released:

"The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial."

When I read that, I thought: dear god, let him say that to their faces tomorrow! This imbecile has no idea what he's in for! This is the same guy who called a federal judge and asked him when he was retiring because he wanted his job. The guy thinks he's all that, but he's really just a rube. And now he has shown that he doesn't know how to dodge questions, the most fundamental requirement for GOP hacks. Gonzales may forgive you, Sampson, but Bush will never forget this.

Because he's such a clod, it may be several hours yet before he realizes his current career is effectively over.

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. All those who sit there in shock, please raise your hands.

[IWantAChange]

6. Repug 'intelligence' continues to underwhelm me....

this is the best Bushco could do for a top position @ Justice? Amazing.......

[rurallib]

8. Which lying scum trying to save their own skin should I believe?

I'll take Sampson only because Rush is against him.

[volstork]

9. K&R

:popcorn:

[ieoeja]

10. Spin

Sorry, but that is not what Sampson said. What he said was that the attorney general's statement was not ...

"accurate if the statement implies that I intentionally withheld any information."


Don't let yourself be carried away by wishful thinking. Those words "if" and "intentionally" are important. All Sampson really says here is that he is not guilty of withholding information from Congress on purpose. He uses the excuse, "we were focused on other questions", to explain away any information he failed to share with McNulty and Moschella.

The transcript written here is pro-Gonzales rather than anti-Gonzales.

[SusanaMontana41]

12. So he's defending himself

I didn't get the impression from his testimony that he's defending Gonzales. But I'm not an attorney.

[ieoeja]

13. But he doesn't implicate Gonzales either.

He's not defending Gonzales exactly. But he certainly isn't accusing Gonzales of anything. In fact, in that transcript he implies that the other two named individuals may have given inaccurate information because of his failure to provide it. Which is a defense of those individuals as well as supporting Gonzales' claim that Sampson failed in just that regard.

And you don't have to be a lawyer. In fact, it probably helps NOT to be a lawyer. The lawyers here -- Sampson, Gonzales, Schumer, etc -- are all looking for any little slip that can be LEGALLY interpreted against Gonzo. I am more interested in the truth.

[SusanaMontana41]

14. I don't think it's Sampson's job

to accuse Gonzales of anything. He's supposed to answer questions truthfully.

I like truth, too.

[elocs]

17. Getting carried away with wishful thinking is pretty routine here.

Wishful thinking is ok when it is tempered with reality, but so often here I see people color things and interpret things the way they would like them to be rather than how they really are.
That's a good way to get jaded or to be constantly disappointed when things turn out quite differently than they were hoped to be.

[ray of light]

11. yep! ask Jesselyn Radack about DOJ coverups and payback!

new diary here

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/9/53924/45275

book avail. at http://www.patriotictruthteller.net

[Deep13]

15. Gonzo, we hardly knew ye.

There are two chewing gum flavors that apply to this situation:
impeach-mint
indict-mint.

[SusanaMontana41]

16. Yep

:9

[HappyWeasel]

18. Perjury?

Lol, Al better start investing on soap on a roap.

[ncteechur]

19. I don't believe that Alberto V05 will go to jail, BUT he must resign in shame,

be disbarred, and wear a sandwich board that says that he lied to Congress. It is what the children would want.

[caledesi]

20. Schumer was "on his game" today....he was GOOD! nt

[HappyWeasel]

21. Schumer is one of the best politicians in America today.

[curiousdemo]

22. I would advise Gonzo to stop

hanging around Bush. Bush Lying have rub off on Gonzo. You know, I smell perjury charges for Gonzo. He better look at hiring an attorney like that New Mexico Senator, what ever his name is.

[Disturbed]

23. Gonzo will not be charged with Perjury.

In a few weeks he may resign. I don't care what happens to him after that. He should be Impeached but the Dems don't have the spines to do that.

[w4rma]

24. I hadn't really thought about impeaching Gonzo. I think that's a good idea.

Just impeach him and let these hearings be impeachment hearings for Gonzo.

Allow Republicans to go on record, with their votes, defending or attacking Gonzo.