I listened to most of [tag]Kyle Sampson[/tag]’s seven-hour hearing yesterday, but a mere five words stood out for me: the [tag]prosecutor[/tag] purge “wasn’t scientific or well-documented.” It explained so much of the [tag]Bush[/tag] administration’s style of governing.
There were some compelling developments yesterday, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was in worse shape at the end of the day than before the hearing began, but ultimately, the revelations proved unsatisfying. Sampson acknowledged that there was a list of prosecutors who had been deemed unworthy of employment, some of whom he acknowledged deserved to keep their jobs. But the process “wasn’t scientific or well-documented.” When it came to the Justice Department and the White House firing top federal prosecutors in an unprecedented purge, the Bush gang, apparently, was winging it.
Sampson testified that “there really was no documentation of this” other than “a chart and notes that I would dump into my lower right desk drawer.”
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said incredulously: “So this was a project you were in charge of? This was a project that lasted for two years? This was a project that would end the careers of eight United States attorneys, and neither you nor anybody reporting to you kept a specific file in your office about it?”
If Sampson is to be believed, no. Better yet, he may have taken notes or produced records during this unscientific and undocumented process, but he discarded them a long time ago.
The whole narrative leads to two possible conclusions about the Bush gang’s conduct: they’re either spectacularly inept or breathtakingly dishonest. It’s a tough call, but I’m leaning towards the latter.
Kevin Drum summarized the problem nicely.
Purgegate broke open ten weeks ago. As Sampson himself admitted, the Justice Department’s explanations of the affair since then have been comically inept. Sampson himself has known for a couple of weeks that he was going to testify before Congress today.
And what’s the single biggest question we all have? It’s this: so why did you choose those particular eight prosecutors to fire, anyway?
And after all this time to prepare and finally get it right, what did Sampson say? Nothing. Almost literally, nothing. He still didn’t have any plausible, documented reasons for firing the USA-8…. There were two years of plans to fire these guys, but we’re supposed to believe that no one really kept any notes and nobody really knows why these guys were selected. It was just a gestalt sort of thing.
Unbelievable. But which is worse: that he’s lying or that he’s telling the truth?
From my desk, it looks like a bogus tale. I’m hardly inclined to trust the administration’s competence, but if yesterday’s testimony was accurate, the administration left that decision about which of these distinguished prosecutors should be fired “in the hands of someone as young and inept as Mr. Sampson. If this were an aboveboard, professional process, it strains credulity that virtually no documents were produced when decisions were made, and that none of his recommendations to Mr. Gonzales were in writing.”
All the more reason for the Judiciary Committee to hear from Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, who can surely clear matters up for us.
This is not to say that the hearings yesterday were a news-free bust. On the contrary; Sampson may have used the phrase “I don’t remember” a memorable 122 times, but he still managed to offer some pertinent revelations.
[tag]Attorney General[/tag] [tag]Alberto Gonzales[/tag] was more deeply involved in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys than he has sometimes acknowledged, and Gonzales and his aides have made a series of inaccurate claims about the issue in recent weeks, the attorney general’s former chief of staff testified yesterday.
In dramatic testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, D. Kyle Sampson also revealed that New Mexico U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias was not added to the dismissal list until just before the Nov. 7 elections, after presidential adviser Karl Rove complained that Iglesias had not been aggressive enough in pursuing cases of voter fraud. Previously, Rove had not been tied so directly to the removal of the prosecutors.
These and other disclosures by Sampson, who abruptly resigned earlier this month, represent the latest challenge to Gonzales’s version of events.
Gonzales was in trouble before, but Sampson certainly made matters worse for his former boss. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Sampson’s recollection of the attorney general’s involvement in the firings had “more or less shattered” Gonzales’ credibility. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) agreed, arguing that Sampson’s testimony did more to cloud Gonzales’ future than clear up the controversy. “I think there are more questions,” Specter said, adding that there was now “a real question as to whether he’s acting in a competent way as attorney general.”
Stay tuned.